Shadowrun

Shadowrun Play => Rules and such => Topic started by: Xenon on <08-05-20/1638:56>

Title: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Xenon on <08-05-20/1638:56>
So, Mission FAQ (http://"https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wqh58dcly04t6m/Missions%20SR6%20FAQ%20v1.pdf?dl=0") is up.

Edit. No it isn't.

Edit2. Yes, now it is again. New link (https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wqh58dcly04t6m/Missions%20SR6%20FAQ%20v1.pdf?dl=0").


It state/clarify that multiple attacks with firearms is only when you attack with 2 different firearms and Anticipation is only used when attacking two different targets with 2 different guns while at the same time having the ambidextrous quality.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <08-05-20/1648:36>
So, Mission FAQ (http://"https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wqh58dcly04t6m/Missions%20SR6%20FAQ%20v1.pdf?dl=0") is up.

It state/clarify that multiple attacks with firearms is only when you attack with 2 different firearms and Anticipation is only used when attacking two different targets with 2 different guns while at the same time having the ambidextrous quality.

Thoughts?

Obligatory "gotta get this in before it gets out of hand" comment:

This only applies to SRM.

It is in no way meant to tell you how to run your home games.  It's only how things should be done for SRM so that everyone does it the same way... not errata.  The two different rules for more or less the same thing (shooting multiple targets at once) are at best problematic to reconcile together.  So this is how they work together in SRM, rather than letting one GM say they work together this way, and that one saying they work together that way.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Xenon on <08-05-20/1705:30>
This reading is not contradicting any single rule (it is perfectly rules legal, RAW, and might very well also be the intended way to resolve it, RAI).


SS, SA (double tap) and Narrow burst does not use the Multiple Attacks action.
Wide Burst does not mention that you use the Multiple Attacks action (and if I recall correctly the German translation even explicitly mention that you don't use the Multiple Attacks action)
Full Auto explicitly mention that you don't use the Multiple Attacks action.


Off-Hand Attacks mention that you use Multiple Attacks action.
Off-hand Attacks also mention that you can't spend edge on attacks unless you are ambidextrous


Multiple Attacks doesn't mention attacking multiple targets with one hand, but it does mention one sword in each hand, one gun in one hand a knife in the other (while the action doesn't spell it out it does seem to support the notion that you only use Multiple Attacks while dual wielding)


Anticipation require that you use a Multiple Attacks action (which mean you are doing a main hand attack and an off-hand attack)
...and it is an Edge Action (which mean your off-hand attack will not benefit from anticipation unless you are ambidextrous).
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: 0B on <08-05-20/1925:44>
For use in home games, I see the SRM as "Rulings that I should consider carefully," similar to "Sage Advice" for D&D. Some of them, like the rulings for Amp Up and Anticipation, make sense. Others would not: IE, I wouldn't have an issue with the sammy giving the rigger 10,000 nuyen for a new vehicle after the old one blew up.

At minimum, they're "rulings that multiple people have thought about, and have most likely been signed off on by CGL."
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: markelphoenix on <08-05-20/2024:05>
For use in home games, I see the SRM as "Rulings that I should consider carefully," similar to "Sage Advice" for D&D. Some of them, like the rulings for Amp Up and Anticipation, make sense. Others would not: IE, I wouldn't have an issue with the sammy giving the rigger 10,000 nuyen for a new vehicle after the old one blew up.

At minimum, they're "rulings that multiple people have thought about, and have most likely been signed off on by CGL."

Also, they are rules within context of having to persist characters between multiple GMs under a unified ruleset, vs the traditional Homebrew options that usually come up with small groups with 1 or 2 GMs that know each other. Rules that server a specific purpose vs. the general case.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: penllawen on <08-06-20/1214:39>
For use in home games, I see the SRM as "Rulings that I should consider carefully," similar to "Sage Advice" for D&D.
I think most of them are straight up good ideas, and deserve more airtime than they get. It’s easy to overlook the SRM FAQ if you don’t play SRM, but both the 5e and 6e ones have lots of stuff that is applicable to any table. I think it’d be good for Shadowrun if the bulk of their content was moved to a generic FAQ, equally applicable for all players, with only the most Missions-specific stuff held back.

Consider those downtime rules, for example. They’d be a very good fit for the 6e player’s handbook splat.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: 0B on <08-06-20/1226:20>
Consider those downtime rules, for example. They’d be a very good fit for the 6e player’s handbook splat.

Yeah, I don't think it'd be very hard to throw it in their indesign template, stick 1-2 half-page or quarter-page pieces of art in it, and release them as an add-on PDF. They're already doing a "shadow stock" series with cheap, short PDFs. Personally, I think one that small (It's what, 4 pages?) ought to be free, but even a $0.99 - $2.99 pricetag for "Advanced Downtime" rules wouldn't be terrible if they're paying to put art on it and alter the wording a bit so it's not SRM specific.

Or even add it on as an appendix the next time they update the 6E CRB PDF. Who knows.

Edit: Basically something like this. The background is CC-BY-SA 4.0, it's for another project-
(https://i.imgur.com/yAwEJCf.png)

You only have to take out a couple of sentences to remove the SRM-specific stuff
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <08-06-20/1244:56>
A Lifestyle+Downtime small supplement would be nice. On the other hand, given the amount of agression thrown around at 'hey here's some training time guidelines, but do whatever feels right for your campaign', having 'hey here's some downtime guidelines, but do whatever feels right for your campaign' might also get massively attacked and be considered a risk.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: penllawen on <08-06-20/1246:12>
A Lifestyle+Downtime small supplement would be nice. On the other hand, given the amount of agression thrown around at 'hey here's some training time guidelines, but do whatever feels right for your campaign', having 'hey here's some downtime guidelines, but do whatever feels right for your campaign' might also get massively attacked and be considered a risk.
Keep beatin' that strawman, Mikey! Your persistence is an inspiration to us all.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: 0B on <08-06-20/1657:41>
A Lifestyle+Downtime small supplement would be nice. On the other hand, given the amount of agression thrown around at 'hey here's some training time guidelines, but do whatever feels right for your campaign', having 'hey here's some downtime guidelines, but do whatever feels right for your campaign' might also get massively attacked and be considered a risk.

There's a big difference between having something like that in a core rulebook and having it in a splatbook or alternate rulebook. I think SR's always had some issues with loose wording on rules, as well as identifying RAI vs RAW.

The SRM guidelines are clear and use direct sentences. For example:

"Gear must be fenced through one of your contacts per the rules on Fencing Gear (SR6 pg. 246). However, the percentage increase from an Influence + Charisma check is capped by Loyalty, which is effectively reduced by one for every point of Heat."

There is no room for doubt here; if I were editing, the only change I'd make is getting rid of that pesky adverb. It also provides a clear reference to a rule (Rules on Fencing Gear), and the book + page number where to find that rule.

Sometimes, it is okay to be more nebulous. From the CRB, pg. 36:

"A glitch on a roll by a helper should cause significant distraction to the next action or few actions they take, preventing them from gaining or spending Edge for one to three combat rounds."

The 'should' used here is fine because glitches tend towards the realm of GM fiat: that is to say, the rules cannot account for every situation, so they instead provide intent and a recommendation. The direction is clear- glitches cause some sort of significant distraction. The specifics are left to the GM, since "distraction" means something different in different scenarios.

Compare to this:

"The time it takes to raise any given ability is truly only suggested—the actual time used is up to the gamemaster, with times best fitting the story they want to tell, but we offer the listed times to create a general consensus."

First of all, get rid of that adverb. "Truly" adds nothing. Second of all, this does not provide a clear enough direction for the GM with "best fitting the story." When you write a rulebook, you need to write it as if it's the first board game that someone's played. Failing that, write it as if it's their first RPG. SR isn't the only TTRPG guilty of this. I digress. If, later on in the GM section, they talked about having "fast-paced" versus "long" campaigns, and suggested that GMs alter training time to better match the pace of runs, this would be acceptable. As it stands, the rules do not provide enough direction.

It's further muddied by "general consensus." Some RPG players might argue that rules themselves are a "consensus." If it said "we offer the listed times as a baseline," that gives the GM an idea that they can make it slower or faster. If they said "but the listed times will work for most campaigns," then you get the idea that the times are the standard.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <08-06-20/1714:56>
And for most campaigns, those training times work just fine.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: penllawen on <08-06-20/1738:42>
And for most campaigns, those training times work just fine.
u wot m8

We're talking about rules where for a from-chargen mage to initiate and then raise their Magic to 7 takes 16 months.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Lormyr on <08-06-20/1740:23>
On the other hand, "most" of the conversation I have seen online or been part of in person (before the plague) voiced opinion to the opposite, stating dislike for the length of both the suggested training times as well as lack of concrete rules.

More on topic, Anticipation itself is a terrible mechanic and the best option for it balance wise would be just getting tossed, so the SRM "nerf" suits me just fine.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: 0B on <08-06-20/2018:33>
And for most campaigns, those training times work just fine.

Whether this is true or not, that's not what the author said. They were imprecise, and thus unclear.

And then there was the thing with GelWeave in Firing Squad- the way I read it, the rule seemed clear: the penalty is based on how much damage the GelWeave resists, minus one. But now it looks like it's going to be errata'd, so that the penalty is based on the total DV (Not "resisted" DV), minus one. And apparently that matches the authors intent better.

I doubt the author intended for anticipation to be so abusable. But what they said did not match what they intended. This pattern of writing in SR is annoying. When a rulebook has a lot of specific mechanics that cover nearly every aspect of play, the rules must be clear.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <08-07-20/0252:09>
I must admit I have no idea what exactly the point you're trying to make is and what Anticipation has to do with training times, given how one is guidelines and the other is meant to be descriptive.

Training times are guidelines. They're explicitly stated to be so. People went BERSERK on them. Literally. They repeatedly argued they proved SR6 was crap, which is of course nonsense given how they're advice in a limited word count section which suffices for any table also following other guidelines in the book. So why would CGL risk producing downtime guidelines, when those same people would just blow up at those? Sounds like a waste of cash to hire writers and an editor just to get people to go 'SEE SR6 SUCKS they're even trying to dictate downtime now!'. MAYBE if people had applied common sense instead of flame tactics... But instead they ruined things for all of us.

Anticipation, meanwhile, suffers from the fact that English is a shitty language. Most of all, it suffers from Firing Modes. There are multiple ways to parse those, which led to various ways of Anticipation, which causes the problem.
I know how I parse those rules. And under that parsing, which uses the absence of a statement in its logic and as such is tough to follow and not everyone agrees with it, it works out just fine except if a player really insists on trying to break the system. But it needs a single extra support statement to be explicit, and the way SRM parses the rules instead might be a way I disagree with, but it does a small sacrifice to prevent a greater excess.

One last note: you said SRM guidelines. But you quote a hard rule instead. That's not a guideline. If you want to continue the debate, I'm going to need a glossary first, because it seems you're interpreting specific words differently and falling over those, making it impossible to figure out what exactly your point is supposed to be. You turning my response about downtime into a big rant about Anticipation is perfect evidence of that.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: 0B on <08-07-20/1058:47>
Apologies for the lack of clarity. I'm not writing rules, I'm making a forum post, but it is important that you understand what I'm saying. I'll be more formal.

Re-clarifying

Shadowrun (SR) books suffer from a lack of clarity in rules, fluff, and guidelines. This makes it difficult to determine the line between rules, fluff, and guidelines. I define game rules as "instructions governing how to play", rulings as "ways of interpreting these rules," fluff as "text that enhances the plot or tone of the book," and guidelines as "advice that aids the GM in creating rulings."

I define the rulings in the Shadowrun Missions (SRM) FAQ as "SRM rules" because they are rules within the context of a SRM game: they are not meant to be adjusted within official SRM games.

There are cases where SR materials can be clear. The SRM rules show concise and direct language. I use them as an example on how to create a rule that is understandable and has clear meaning.

There are cases where SR materials are not clear, but this serves its purpose. For example, the guideline cited previously on p. 36. Being unclear is fine in a guideline since it is intended to aid interpretation, rather than be clear direction.

There are cases where SR materials are not clear, to the extent that this no longer serves its purpose. This is the case with time tables. Time tables are also a case of SR assuming that the GM has game-mastered or at least played RPGs before, which is a sin committed by many RPGs. It's also bad design.

There are cases where SR materials appear to be clear, but do not match the RAI at all. For example, the rule for GelWeave states:

For GelWeave, the armor can resist up to the rating of the GelWeave in incoming damage against each attack. However, the gel becomes rigid when absorbing more than a small hit (1 DV) each round, and reduces Agility, Reaction, and meters of movement by (DV resisted – 1) for three combat turns. These reductions are cumulative across combat rounds, and the duration for all reductions is three rounds after the latest hit. If Reaction or Agility is reduced to 0, the wearer gains
the Immobilized status


This rule seemed clear to me. The GelWeave rating is the amount of damage (DV) resisted. The penalty is DV resisted - 1. Therefore, if GelWeave only resists 1 damage, the penalty will be 0. GelWeave rating 1 will only resist 1 damage, and therefore, will never incur penalties. I later learned that this does NOT match author intent.

And then, there is anticipation.

Getting the Train back on Target

Anticipation (Multiple Attacks, Ranged Attack): You played this combat like a game of chess, using each strike to direct your opponents to a particular spot. Now they’re there, and you can attack without even looking at them, since you’re firing at a spot, not a person. When performing this Multiple Attack, roll your full dice pool for each target. Cost: 4 Edge

This seemed like one of the times where SR writing blended fluff and rules well. The first two sentences are fluff, and they also provide guidelines for retconning why this works within the game world fiction. The subject and last sentence are as clear as they can be. When making a multiple attack that is also a ranged attack, you roll your full dice pool against each target. So, if you have 20 dice and split your attack between two targets, each target faces 29 dice, for a total of 40 dice rolled. If you split it among four targets, each target faces 20 dice, for a total of 80 dice rolled.

Caveats: If you are using a main weapon and an off-hand weapon as part of this, only your main weapon gets the benefit per p. 100: it would be 30 dice total or 50 dice total (20+10, or 20+20+5+5). A GM could make a ruling that cannot even use anticipation if your off-hand is part of the attack, so it only applies if you make multiple attacks with your main hand weapon. If you have Ambidextrous, you do not take this penalty.

You say Firing Modes play into this, but they seem equally clear:

BF: You’ve got a fancy gun that pumps out multiple rounds with a single trigger pull. You can fire four rounds in an attack. You can shoot a narrow burst, which decreases the Attack Rating by 4 and increases damage by 2, or make a wide burst and split your dice pool between two targets and count each as a SA-mode shot.

So with a wide burst, you split dice between two targets, and treat each as a SA-mode shot. This is where we enter confusion: should this count as a multiple attack? If you take this section alone, the answer should be "no" because Multiple Attack is the name of a specific Minor Action, and nothing in this states you must do this. However, if you read the entire section, you see FA:

This mode allows multiple attacks without using the Multiple Attack Minor Action.

You could interpret this to be the 'exception that proves the rule:' Because FA specifically allows multiple attacks without using the Multiple Attack Minor Action, the others do not allow it. (IE, "No parking on Sunday" means that you can park every other day of the week. This is the interpretation of 'exception that proves the rule' that courts of law in the US use.) You might be able to interpret this to mean when you make a wide burst with BF, you are using the Multiple Attack minor action, and therefore, must use that minor action in conjunction with the wide burst.

Personally, I'd make a ruling that that is too much of a stretch: you should evaluate BF on its own.

However, I don't think you need either mode to exploit anticipation. This is the rule for "Multiple Attack:"

A character can attack more than one opponent, assuming ammunition, reach, and enemy placement allow it. Split your dice pool evenly among all targets, or if you are using two different forms of attack, use half the dice pool for each, rounded down. This action must be used in conjunction with an Attack Major Action.

The restrictions here are based on ammo, reach, and enemy placement. There is NO restriction on how fast it takes for you to aim and fire your weapon, or on which firing mode you use. You could use a strict SS or SA weapon with this. Take the FN P93 Praetor, for example. It has a SA mode and a clip of 50, allowing you to make 25 SA attacks before you need to reload. This would normally not be a good idea, since you round down for multiple attacks; no 6E character will have a dice pool of 25. However, let's say you use Anticipation, you have a dice pool of 5, and you have Ambidextrous.

You use a major action and a minor action to do multiple attacks. Since you have ambidextrous, you can use edge actions with an off-hand weapon as well. You wield two FN P93 Praetors, and have enough ammo to make 25 attacks with each one. That's 50 attacks, with 5 dice each, for a total of 250 dice and base 250 DV (With the +1 from SA). Your face who used Agility as a dump stat isn't looking too shabby now, are they? (Granted, the attacks might not all hit, and the first time you glitch, your now-irritated GM will probably make your gun explode, halting the attack).

I reject the excuse of "English Language" because there are instances even within SR materials where authors use language in a way that is clear, or in a way where the vagueness best serves their purpose. I don't even think firing mode plays into this as much: we can use a normal SA/SS attack with the normal rules for multiple attack and achieve ridiculous results.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: penllawen on <08-07-20/1214:39>
Anticipation, meanwhile, suffers from the fact that English is a shitty language.
There are no shitty languages, just shitty writers.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Xenon on <08-07-20/1336:58>
Many English words can have more than one meaning. Which doesn't help.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: 0B on <08-07-20/1454:49>
Anticipation, meanwhile, suffers from the fact that English is a shitty language.
There are no shitty languages, just shitty writers.

Even if that's true, I don't think it's safe to assume that these issues are because of the writers. Freelancers in 6E did not have the ability to view each others' work, and the editing process does not seem to catch contradictions.

If the person who wrote Anticipation did not know what the text of Multiple Attack was, they may have assumed that Multiple Attack had restrictions on firearms preventing someone from breaking physics.

The physics just don't work out for someone to aim and fire a SMG 25 times in the course of 3 seconds. The actual rate of fire on a nice SMG might allow 30+ shots over the course of 3 seconds, but not aimed shots, and certainly not in SA mode.

Or you know what? Maybe the author did have access to it, and they just didn't think it through. Or they didn't care, since it's 3 cents a word and this is just something they do in their free time. Who knows

Without knowing the author's frame of reference, I wouldn't place the blame all on them. Even if they're just a bad writer, 100% of the blame lies with CGL because the author did not retain IP. CGL bought their work and took full ownership of it, so they also have full responsibility for what they publish.

Many English words can have more than one meaning. Which doesn't help.

Although true, this is a solved problem. RPGs define terminology; Shadowrun is no different.

Multiple attack states "Split your dice pool evenly among all targets."

Anticipation says "When performing this Multiple Attack, roll your full dice pool for each target."

Multiple Attack and Dice Pool are explicitly defined in SR.

"Target" is implicitly defined in all other combat actions: the combat chapter uses "target" for most things, but uses "defender" in a few cases when they're talking about a defense pool.

In this instance, we can see that the "target" used in anticipation must correspond with the "target" in multiple attack. There is no reasonable interpretation to say that these have different meanings. Now, if one said "target" and another said "defender," there would be room for interpretation: After all, you can "target" a wall, but can a wall really "defend?"

The only other thing I can think of is someone saying that a "split" dice pool could be the same as a "full" dice pool. IE, it could be the "full" dice pool after it has been split. But if this is the case, then anticipation does nothing. It is fair to assume that the author intended for Anticipation to modify the Multiple Attack rule.

This isn't a case of the author not stating their intentions clearly, it's that they didn't think through the consequences. Their "written intent" does not match the "mechanical intent." Multiple attack allows you to attack as many times as you want, limited only by ammunition, reach, and enemy positions. Anticipation allows you to use your full dice pool on each attack. The written language is clear: You can use your full dice pool on as many attacks allowed by multiple attack.

Am I going crazy? What other way could you read these rules?
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Xenon on <08-07-20/1606:04>
RPGs define terminology;
Most do, yes. Often very efficient when doing strict writing. Like Rules. Or requirements. etc. I often try to promote this in my projects.

Shadowrun is no different.
Are you new to Shadowrun or something? Shadowrun actually have a history of going great length at deliberately using different terms for similar things. Great when writing a novel perhaps. Not so good when writing a set of rules....



Multiple attack states "Split your dice pool evenly among all targets."
Yet, not a single firing mode seem to invoke multiple attacks ;-)

The only place that seem to invoke multiple attacks is Off-hand. Off-hand Attacks states "If you’re attacking with two hands, the attack from your primary hand can still gain and spend Edge; for other rules, see Multiple Attacks below."

Once we dual wield we can attack twice at the same time by invoking multiple attacks and read the rules in multiple attacks (note it doesn't say multiple targets, it says multiple attacks - so it applies when we use our two hands to attack the same target twice or when we use our two hands to attack one target each with each hand). So in addition to dual wielding, Multiple attacks also state that we need to have ammo. And placement of the targets is also important to consider. etc. It also says that we need to split the dice pool as evenly among, in this case both, targets.

And the different distinct attacks you are qualified to take with each hand depend on the weapon's current firing mode.


Anticipation says "When performing this Multiple Attack, roll your full dice pool for each target."
Instead of splitting dice pool between the target you attack with your main hand and the target you attack with your off-hand you use full dice pool against both targets.

You hold a SA gun in your primary hand and a SA gun in your off-hand?

If you take the multiple attack minor action you are allowed to double tap with the weapon you have in your primary hand and double tap with the weapon you have in your off-hand by splitting the dice pool between the two attacks.

If you (qualify and) take the anticipation edge action the then the dice pool is no longer split and you use your full dice pool for both your targets (note that anticipation is taking about targets rather than attacks which seem to suggest that you need to attack two different targets with your primary hand and your off-hand in case you wish to qualify for the anticipation bonus).



"Target" is implicitly defined in all other combat actions: the combat chapter uses "target" for most things, but uses "defender" in a few cases when they're talking about a defense pool.
If it only was that simple :D

While actually a lot better than previous edition when it comes to this the book still also use words such as "Another being" and "Object" and "Location" and "Metahumans" and "Characters" and "Critters" and "People" and "Subject" and .......





Multiple attack allows you to attack as many times as you want, limited only by ammunition, reach, and enemy positions.
Or.... Multiple attack just tell us how to resolve multiple attack.

And maybe it is the off-hand action (and other future actions that are not released yet) that tell us when we are allowed to invoke multiple attack in the first place (in this case by attacking with both our primary hand and our off-hand at the same time).

Multiple attacks just remind us that just because we are dual wielding does not automatically mean we can attack two targets. We also have to have ammo. And the placement of the two targets need to be within reason. etc

And also that we need to split the dice pool between the attack made with our primary hand and our off-hand.


Anticipation allows you to use your full dice pool on each attack. The written language is clear: You can use your full dice pool on as many attacks allowed by multiple attack.
It allow us not split the dice pool between the primary hand and the off-hand.

It will not allow us to not split the dice pool when using full auto (because multiple attack is not invoked here).

It will also not allow us to not split the dice pool when using wide burst (because multiple attack is not invoked here either).[/quote]



What other way could you read these rules?
I just gave you one =)
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: penllawen on <08-07-20/1618:43>
Even if that's true, I don't think it's safe to assume that these issues are because of the writers. Freelancers in 6E did not have the ability to view each others' work, and the editing process does not seem to catch contradictions.
Sorry, "writer" in this sense intended to mean the broader "everyone responsible for putting those words onto the page." Not just the specific freelancer who wrote those words. I agree there may be many reasons why the freelancer wrote something perfectly reasonable that became unreasonable in retrospect.

Quote
Without knowing the author's frame of reference, I wouldn't place the blame all on them. Even if they're just a bad writer, 100% of the blame lies with CGL because the author did not retain IP. CGL bought their work and took full ownership of it, so they also have full responsibility for what they publish.
I am in full and violent agreement with this. The buck stops with CGL.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: 0B on <08-07-20/1705:53>
Shadowrun is no different.
Are you new to Shadowrun or something? Shadowrun actually have a history of going great length at deliberately using different terms for similar things. Great when writing a novel perhaps. Not so good when writing a set of rules....

Shadowrun 6E CRB has a whole chapter where they define terminology. Whether or not they stick to it is a different question.

Yet, not a single firing mode seem to invoke multiple attacks ;-) [...] And the different distinct attacks you are qualified to take with each hand depend on the weapon's current firing mode.

The rules for multiple attacks do not state anywhere that the firing mode you use or the number of weapons you wield affect the number of attacks you can make. It's purely based on ammo, reach, and enemy line of sight. Nothing stops you from making 2 attacks with one weapon, or one attack each with two weapons.

5e was more explicit about this (It specifically says you can make multiple attacks with the same weapon), but 6e neither allows this nor prevents this.

When you are reviewing the rules for multiple attacks, you look at the multiple attack rules. AR and DR don't say anything about multiple attacks either- does this mean that I can't generate edge on a multiple attack? Come to think of it, how do you calculate AR and DR during a multiple attack?

The second time they define multiple attacks, the fluff even implies that they expect someone to attack multiple times with the same weapon:

Whether it’s shooting a bunch of bullets at multiple people, throwing shuriken at a marauding group, or using a sword in each hand, there may be times you want to deliver multiple attacks at once.

"Shuriken," originally a Japanese word, uses the same word for singular and plural. since the author said "throwing shuriken" instead of "throwing a shuriken," they are also using the plural form. This is also implied by the author noting that this has to do with multiple attacks. "Marauding group" also implies more than two people, but this is where we get into vagueness. This part is fluff, so all we can do is guess at the author's intent.

Additionally, the book stresses "multiple targets" and "dividing dice pool evenly" throughout. If you could only make up to two attacks, why would it bother? "two targets" and "divide dice pool in half" are more precise.

There is nothing in the 6E core rulebook that states that each held weapon may only be used once during a multiple attack. The language used implies that weapons can make multiple attacks.

(note that anticipation is taking about targets rather than attacks which seem to suggest that you need to attack two different targets with your primary hand and your off-hand in case you wish to qualify for the anticipation bonus).

It does not suggest this.

The second definition of Multiple Attacks elaborates "This can be against multiple targets, or you could attempt two attacks against the same target. Whatever the case, to make multiple attacks, divide your attacking dice pool by the number of attacks made as evenly as possible, then make the rolls." And the first definition of Multiple Attacks states "Split your dice pool evenly among all targets, or if you are using two different forms of attack, use half the dice pool for each, rounded down."

One interpretation: "target" is what is targeted, and "attack" is the action. Splitting dice between "targets" is the same as splitting dice between "attacks." If I wield a sword in one hand and attack with it twice, I would split 10 dice into 5 for each attack, even thought the target is the same. If I wield a sword in each hand and attack once with each sword, I would split 10 dice into 5 for each attack.

Second interpretation: "target" is what is targeted, and "attack" is the action. However, splitting dice between "targets" is not the same as splitting dice between "attacks." If I wield a sword in one hand and attack with it twice, I split 10 dice into 10 for each target. I would roll 10 dice on each attack, since there is only one target. If I wield a sword in each hand and attack once with each sword, I split 10 dice into 10 for each attack since there is only one target.

If the second interpretation is true, then we have a new problem with this rule.

While actually a lot better than previous edition when it comes to this the book still also use words such as "Another being" and "Object" and "Location" and "Metahumans" and "Characters" and "Critters" and "People" and "Subject" and .......

True, but irrelevant with how "Target" is used in this context. Also take note: Multiple Attack and Anticipation use the same terminology of Target.

Or.... Multiple attack just tell us how to resolve multiple attack.

No. I quoted the rule a few times, those are the only limitations. Any other limitations are speculation- I'm fine with a GM making a houserule on that, of course, but nothing in the rule creates additional limitation.

And maybe it is the off-hand action (and other future actions that are not released yet) that tell us when we are allowed to invoke multiple attack

Again, speculation. If this is a rule, they need to put it in the rulebook.

~~~~

Also:

Shadowrun is no different.
Are you new to Shadowrun or something? Shadowrun actually have a history of going great length at deliberately using different terms for similar things. Great when writing a novel perhaps. Not so good when writing a set of rules....

Chill on the ad hominen, guy. Does it matter if someone's played 5 years or 20? Are people who've only played a month or so allowed to have an opinion on the rules? It doesn't matter how new I am to shadowrun. We're not arguing about who I am, we're talking about the book.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <08-07-20/1721:11>
I'll give some airing of my own personal thought process on the SRM take on Multiple Attacks/Anticipation/Firing Modes.

I'm fairly sure the intent was that you COULD mow down a squad of Paul Blarts or Gangers with an assault rifle, use anticipate, and get full dice pools for the lot.  But in a case of the left hand not talking to the right hand, I assume that whoever did the Multiple Attacks rules never saw the Firing Mode rules.  And vice versa.  So we have 2 different rules governing the exact same activity.  Not good.

I see two avenues where RAW is held true throughout.  RAI suffers either way... it just suffers in different ways.

Avenue #1) what got approved and published.  TL;DR on it is you basically don't combine the two rules.  But now Anticipate takes a substantial nerf in usability as a 2nd order effect (not to say that's necessarily terrible... as evidenced above some rather like Anticipate being nerfed on general principle)

Avenue #2) Just mash the two together and force them to work simultaneously.  It produces insane results.  For example, why use a SA attack where you suffer an AR hit for a bonus to one DV roll, when you could have instead shot someone twice for no AR penalty and no DV bonus, but TWO DV applications! Two soak rolls!  And if you can shoot two targets, why not 10? 15?  Who even needs Full Auto Firing mode?  Indeed, if you CAN use multiple attacks to shoot multiple people and ignore rate of fire, there is literally no use for the FA firing mode. It's weaker in every way than the humble SS firing mode.  And that's only assuming you're multiple attacking without firing modes... how stupid is it when you start multiple attacking SA bursts?  BF bursts?   there's so many nitty interactions that all need rulings/clarifications, but even if they were all ruled in a consistent way the rate of fire problem is amplified by an order of magnitude.  If a gun has the BF firing mode.. you use Multiple Attacks to make 10 BF Narrow Bursts... who the hell needs FA firing mode when you can crank out 40 rounds in one attack?  And how crazy is it to figure out multiple attacking BF Wide bursts... you split dice pools, then split dice pools... where does Anticipate trigger to refill?  Etc. Etc.  It's a giant, stinking mess.

Shouldn't be too hard to see why SRM went the way it did.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: 0B on <08-07-20/1736:27>
Oh definitely. What pains me is that 5e already had a reasonable rule for dealing with my nonsense:

"The total number of attacks you can make in a single Action Phase is limited to one-half the attacker’s Combat Skill."

Adjusted to 6e and adding a (round up), you get:

"When using Multiple Attacks, the attacker can make up to (Combat Skill / 2, round up) attacks."
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Xenon on <08-07-20/2158:10>
In SR6 many rules can be read in more than one way. Since this is the case then perhaps we should explore the different options and pick the one that makes most sense.


Your reading:

Firing mode tell us what type of attack you can do with the firearm, but it does not tell us how many of such attacks we can make. By spending a minor action together with our major attack action we can split the dice as many times we wish and take that attack as many times we wish (either same target many times or multiple targets or a combination of the two). As long as we have enough ammo in the magazine.

So instead of using full auto mode to split the dice pool 10 times to attack 10 times without spending a minor action but with -6 AR we can for example use a single shot weapon, split the dice pool 10 times to attack 10 times without -6 AR (as long as we have a magazine size of at least 10 bullets) but we need to spend a minor action when doing it. And if we use 4 edge then we don't have to split the pool while attacking 10 times.

Instead of using a Wide Burst to attack 2 targets by splitting the pool we can for example use a SA weapon, split the dice pool to attack 2 times (or split the pool 3 times to attack 3 times) by spending a minor action when doing it. And if we use 4 edge then we don't have to split the pool while attacking (if we have a weapon with 50 bullets we can make 25 attacks without splitting the pool at all).



SRM reading:

Firing mode tell us what type of attack you can do with the firearm and that you can only do one of them per major action. If you wield two weapons and wish to attack with both of them at the same time you combine your major attack action with a minor multiple attack action and split the pool between the two attacks.

If you have a single shot weapon then you can only fire it once during your major action. If you have two then you can fire both of them (either against two different targets or by attempting to hit the same target twice) by splitting the pool. And if we use 4 edge then we don't have to split the pool while firing both of them.

If you have a SA weapon then you can only double tap it once during your major action. If you have two then you can double tap both of them (either against two different targets or by attempting to hit the same target twice) by splitting the pool. And if we use 4 edge then we don't have to split the pool while firing both of them.




Since the book is ambiguous on the matter you are free to resolve it with both readings (there are probably a third reading to this that is equally valid). Since the book is not strictly written and there are no clarifying examples to guide us here I would say that even though there are two vastly different results you probably don't even have to call either of them a house rule.



A few comments:


"Assuming ammunition allow it" could simply mean that "we are only allowed to if we have enough ammo". It does not automatically mean that "we can ignore firing mode of the firearm and attack an unlimited amount of targets as long as we have enough ammo in the magazine to support it".


Multiple attack mention a sword in each hand. Or a gun in one hand and a knife in the other. Shuriken (as in more than 1) instead of "a shuriken". They are talking about attempting two attacks against the same target. Off hand is referring to multiple attacks when attacking with two hands.

- There are multiple references to using more than one weapon. We know for a FACT that this action IS used when you are dual wielding.
- We are SPECULATING that it might also be used used when you are using a single weapon. But truth is that book is not very clear on this matter (it might or might not be correct).


Shadowrun is notoriously known for not using a strict language when writing their rules. They actually tried to clean that up in this edition and compared to the previous edition it is easy to see that they made progress here. But that says more about how bad this was in 5th edition more than anything else.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Xenon on <08-07-20/2207:22>
Oh definitely. What pains me is that 5e already had a reasonable rule for dealing with my nonsense:

"The total number of attacks you can make in a single Action Phase is limited to one-half the attacker’s Combat Skill."

Adjusted to 6e and adding a (round up), you get:

"When using Multiple Attacks, the attacker can make up to (Combat Skill / 2, round up) attacks."
And as for 5th edition, depending on your reading firing mode was the limiting factor in that edition (as well).

If you used a weapon in BF mode then your weapon would automatically fire 3 bullets within 0.2 seconds or so each time you tapped the trigger. With a complex action you were allowed to tap the trigger twice. Firing 2 bursts of 3 bullets at a single target (resolved as one burst of 6 bullets). Or, by taken the multiple attack free action, you could aim at one target and tap the trigger and then aim at a second target as you tapped the trigger the second time. But in order to do that you needed to have a weapon skill (not dice pool) of 3 or more. And both targets had to be at short or medium range. And you split the pool evenly against both targets.

If you used a weapon in SA mode then the weapon fired 1 bullet each time you pulled the trigger. With a complex action you were allowed to pull the trigger three times. This was resolved as a single burst of 3 bullets. Or, by taken the multiple attack action, you could hit up to 3 different targets. But in order to do that you needed to have a weapon skill of 5 or more. And all three targets had to be at short or medium range. And you split the dice pool evenly over the three targets.

That was the only two options for multiple attack when using a single firearm (single shot weapon only fired a single bullet per action phase and full auto was either used to spray a single target with a burst of 6 bullets as a simple action or a longer burst of 10 bullets as a complex action - or you could also spray n pray a frontal cone AoE with suppressive fire, hitting both friend or foe).

You could also dual wield two firearms. This let you take the multiple attack action to attack each of the two weapons once each by splitting the dice pool (no matter what firing mode they were using).


edit:
Note that the SRM reading of SR6 is very similar to the above reading of SR5 (just that SA mode now only have single target double tap option and can no longer be used against multiple enemies and BF now fire a burst of 4 bullets that you can either aim at one target with the narrow burst option or 'spray' over two targets -without spending a multiple attack minor action- with the wide burst option).


But we also had a similar discussion in SR5. You see.... Depending on your reading it could also be interpreted as if it was rules legal to tap the trigger of a BF weapon twice in a complex action but and then take the multiple attack action in order to split the 6 bullets over up to 6 different targets (hitting one target with 1 bullet each) by splitting the pool 6 times (which would require that you had a weapon skill of 11+). That reading just didn't make much sense (to me), but I know some tables still use that reading today. Just as it doesn't make much sense (to me) that you want to double tap a semi automatic pistol 25 times in one major action.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: 0B on <08-08-20/1058:47>
Since the book is ambiguous on the matter you are free to resolve it with both readings (there are probably a third reading to this that is equally valid). Since the book is not strictly written and there are no clarifying examples to guide us here I would say that even though there are two vastly different results you probably don't even have to call either of them a house rule.

[...]

Shadowrun is notoriously known for not using a strict language when writing their rules. They actually tried to clean that up in this edition and compared to the previous edition it is easy to see that they made progress here. But that says more about how bad this was in 5th edition more than anything else.

Yeah, that's the point I'm trying to make. When I read rules, I read them a bit like code: all that matters is what's written.   RAI be damned, if the rule isn't in the book, it doesn't exist, and I'll make a ruling on it based on what makes the most sense. If it says "A character can attack more than one opponent, assuming ammunition, reach, and enemy
placement allow it" and not "you can only make one attack per weapon," I base my ruling off of what's in the book. Why say "more than one opponent" if the intent is "one opponent per weapon?"

The text of multiple attack does NOT include any mention of firing modes, and the only firing mode that mentions multiple attack is burst fire. Therefore, the other firing modes and melee attacks are not a factor in making a ruling on multiple attack.

I disagree with your assessment of clarity, at least with this specific rule. In most cases, 5e rules are more disorganized and you have to hunt for them. In this case, however, 5e only includes one definition of multiple attack (Instead of the two slightly different definitions that 6e provides), and it also imposes a clear limit on the number of attacks you can make. 5e specifically notes that you can make multiple attacks with a single weapon, noting a sword as an example. Each firing mode in 5e explicitly states how multiple attacks may be used in that mode. 6e does not provide this detail: only Burst Fire mentions it-

"This mode allows multiple attacks without using the Multiple Attack Minor Action."

There's a thing in legalese called "exception that proves the rule." If you see a sign on a road that says "no parking on Sunday," then that proves you can park every other day of the week. Otherwise, the sign would just say "no parking."

If we assume the author was making appropriate use of the English language, then this implies that the other firing modes allow multiple attacks with the multiple attack minor action. If we assume that the author was just sloppy, then we can assume nothing.

That reading just didn't make much sense (to me), but I know some tables still use that reading today. Just as it doesn't make much sense (to me) that you want to double tap a semi automatic pistol 25 times in one major action.

Agreed. Even if the author intended for you to be able to make multiple attacks with a melee weapon, SA, or SS, they certainly didn't intend for you to be able to do it 25 times. I'm guessing this is a case of "Firing Mode author assumed that Multiple Attacks author would keep the overall limit on attacks per turn" and "Multiple Attacks author assumed that Firing Mode author would keep the limits per firing mode."

I only played 5e for about 6 months or so (Because of the disorganization frustration), so it's confusing as shit to me when you started talking about how in 6e, firing modes were a limitation on multiple attack, because nothing in 6e's text supports it.

I'm not sure if SRM's ruling is sufficient, I think this rule needs official errata as well. I don't know if it really matters if you can only make 2 attacks with multiple attack, or if you can make 20: clearly there is some confusion.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <08-08-20/1125:55>
So, Mission FAQ (http://"https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wqh58dcly04t6m/Missions%20SR6%20FAQ%20v1.pdf?dl=0") is up.

It state/clarify that multiple attacks with firearms is only when you attack with 2 different firearms and Anticipation is only used when attacking two different targets with 2 different guns while at the same time having the ambidextrous quality.

Thoughts?

Don't like it at all. I think a limit on attacks is fine, I see no need to add a need for a second weapon and or ambidexterity. That's a style choice, leave it at that.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <08-08-20/1131:38>
On the other hand, "most" of the conversation I have seen online or been part of in person (before the plague) voiced opinion to the opposite, stating dislike for the length of both the suggested training times as well as lack of concrete rules.

More on topic, Anticipation itself is a terrible mechanic and the best option for it balance wise would be just getting tossed, so the SRM "nerf" suits me just fine.

Not sure whats worse anticipation man under a more broad reading of it with multiple attacks or one punch man who can reliably generate 2 edge a turn.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Lormyr on <08-08-20/1236:11>
On the other hand, "most" of the conversation I have seen online or been part of in person (before the plague) voiced opinion to the opposite, stating dislike for the length of both the suggested training times as well as lack of concrete rules.

More on topic, Anticipation itself is a terrible mechanic and the best option for it balance wise would be just getting tossed, so the SRM "nerf" suits me just fine.

Not sure whats worse anticipation man under a more broad reading of it with multiple attacks or one punch man who can reliably generate 2 edge a turn.

Definitely anticipation imo. Multiple attacks on the same turn with full dice pool is a mechanical problem with few equals, other than say magic related ones.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <08-08-20/1309:21>
On the other hand, "most" of the conversation I have seen online or been part of in person (before the plague) voiced opinion to the opposite, stating dislike for the length of both the suggested training times as well as lack of concrete rules.

More on topic, Anticipation itself is a terrible mechanic and the best option for it balance wise would be just getting tossed, so the SRM "nerf" suits me just fine.

Not sure whats worse anticipation man under a more broad reading of it with multiple attacks or one punch man who can reliably generate 2 edge a turn.

Definitely anticipation imo. Multiple attacks on the same turn with full dice pool is a mechanical problem with few equals, other than say magic related ones.

I think it can be on some tables. A optimized anticipation is much worse but you can see a non optimized one punch man fairly easily wreck havoc. A table with optimized players might know how to deal with things like this better.

Now some of this stems form I am not a fan of the edge system.  I think most of those actions should have been developed in a minor action system. For something like multiple attacks/anticipation. Major action attack, each minor action you spend allows you to attack another target but you split the pools evenly, you can spend additional minor actions to use your full pool on one of those per minor action.

So for example you want to shoot 3 people 1 major and 3 minor actions. You want to shoot 3 people with no penalty  1 major 6 minor actions.  Maybe you only have 4 minor actions, so you shoot 3 and only one of the shots is at your full dice pool, the remaining 2 are at 1/3 your pool.

I'd of wanted magic on a similar system, want to cast a more powerful lightning bolt not only is the drain higher but it costs extra minor actions. Some spells at their default might cost additional minor actions. If you don't have enough minor actions it carries over into your next turn.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Xenon on <08-08-20/1319:48>
Why say "more than one opponent" if the intent is "one opponent per weapon?"
Perhaps because the action can also be taken with other types of weapons that allow you to wield more than one per hand (in previous edition you were for example allowed to throw more than 2 already readied shuriken or throwing knives as one complex action)

Perhaps because some firing modes let you attack multiple targets with a single firearm (depending on your reading wide burst might require a multiple attacks minor action even if you are using a single firearm)

Perhaps because some future supplement will re-introduce races that have more than two arms (which would let you wield and fire four guns in the same major action).


This is actually a common rule structure found elsewhere in Shadowrun.



and the only firing mode that mentions multiple attack is burst fire.
Wide burst does not say that you also need to spend a multiple attack minor action.

- If the intent was that wide burst also does not use a minor action would it made more sense to clarify that in the rule? Yes.
- If the intent was that wide burst had to spend a minor action would it made more sense to clarify that in the rule? Yes.

But if you know RAI then the ruling doesn't really change by having this clarifying rule. This would be considered a 'redundant' rule by the editing team. And as such it could be cut without changing the outcome. And this is what they did in many many cases in this edition.

Unfortunately because the audience does not know RAI this made it ambiguous and triggered all kinds of strange discussions of how the really resolve the rule (like the one we are having).

The outcome is that it is now rules legal to never use a minor action together with wide burst but it is also rules legal to always use a minor multiple attack action together with wide burst. Without knowing RAI both of them are equally correct (an indirect effect is also that in one case you can't combine it with anticipation while in the other case you can use anticipation to not split the pool between your two targets).

The edition is actually full of examples like this.



Full auto does also not say that you also need to spend a multiple attack minor action (in fact it explicitly tell us that you don't spend a minor action, this type of clarifying rules or examples is normally missing in SR6).

Having said that, since they used the word 'allows' (which is not very clear or distinct at all) it can either be read as if
- you can also use the attack with a minor multiple attack action if you so chose (which would make it a candidate for anticipation)
- or that you never use a minor action (which would mean you cannot take it together with anticipation).

Without clarifying rules or examples (or more exact language) both readings are correct according to RAW.



Each firing mode in 5e explicitly states how multiple attacks may be used in that mode.
In SR5 only SA mode and BF mode while using a complex action mention multiple attacks with one weapon and how to resolve them (both targets must be within medium range for example)

And if you tap the trigger twice in BF mode then it stand to reason that you can only hit two different targets (not six, but due to shitty editing in SR5 this part is not very clear... at least for people that never fired a burst fire weapon in real life...  or in call of duty etc for that matter).


All four firing modes mention that you can wield two weapons and that you can take the multiple attacks (in case you wield two weapons, but due to shitty editing this part is also not very clear and, even though it is physically impossible(!), it can also be read as if you can take multiple attacks while firing a single 3-bullet burst from a BF weapon to split the 3-bullet burst into 3 single bullets that can hit three different targets. Even at extreme range and 120 degrees apart...



6e does not provide this detail: only Burst Fire mentions it-

"This mode allows multiple attacks without using the Multiple Attack Minor Action."
(You are quoting Full Auto, not Burst Fire)



If you see a sign on a road that says "no parking on Sunday," then that proves you can park every other day of the week.
Good example. Let me expand a bit on that.

In previous editions of Shadowrun the rule structure was typically the reverse and that everything was by default forbidden unless it was explicitly permitted.

In order for there to be a sign that says "No parking on Sunday" there would always also be a sign that says "Parking allowed all days of the week". Due to editing nature in SR5 the two rules would typically been scattered over different locations in the book. The specific rule (No parking on Sunday) would overrule the general rule (Parking allowed all days of the week). There would typically also be a clarifying example ("You are allowed to park on Mondays, but if it happen to be Sunday then you would not be allowed to park there (See No parking on Sunday p. xxx)").

In SR6, however, editors typically leave out the general "Parking allowed all days of the week" sign (because it is sort of redundant if you know that RAI is that you are allowed to park all days of the week unless an explicit rules says otherwise) and just have a sign that says "No parking on Sunday". But they would also make it less clear and change the sign to "You are allowed to not park on Sunday" ;-)

Compared to previous editions of Shadowrun this doesn't follow the normal rule structure and instead of making it more simple and easier for the audience to understand it become highly ambiguous and can now instead be read as if
- you are allowed to park all other days except Sunday
- you are allowed normally not allowed to park on Sunday but you can also park on Sunday if you choose to do it
- but it can also be read as if since there is no rule that allow you to park the other days you are not allowed to park any day of the week either (because perhaps the You are allowed to not park on Sunday was just sloppy editing to just clarify that parking was not allowed on Sundays even though it was also not allowed any other day of the week.




If we assume the author was making appropriate use of the English language...
I honestly don't feel that this is an assumption we can make at this point....
For some of the earlier editions perhaps (like SR4 20A and to some extent SR5), but not for for SR6.


If we assume that the author was just sloppy, then we can assume nothing.
Bingo!!!!!!!!!


this implies that the other firing modes allow multiple attacks with the multiple attack minor action.
But perhaps the intent is that you can only take the multiple attack action in SR6 if you wield two firearms (or if you have more than one readied throwing weapons or if you wield two melee weapons or one melee weapon and one firearm) ;-)


Please humor me and re-read the rules with this mindset and you will see that it all fits. There is no contradiction to this reading (but also no clarifying rules or examples to support it).

I have re-read the rules with the mindset that you can take multiple attacks with only the limitations in that action and this reading also fits. There is also no contradiction to this reading (but on the other hand there are also no clarifying rules or examples to support it)

Because the book is ambiguous and because there are no clarifying examples both readings are RAW.

But game mechanic wise it make a lot more sense (to me) that you can only fire a single fire weapon once in a major action and if you wish to attack two targets using single shot weapons then you need to wield one in each hand, firing both at the same time.

Game mechanic wise it make very little sense (to me) that you would be allowed to fire a single shot weapon 10 times with just a single major action by also spending a minor action (because then what is the point of full auto??!?)


This mean it is clear (to me) that the intent is not that you are allowed to fire a single fire weapon 10 times with a major action by spending a minor action.

For me it is clear that in order to attack more than once with firearms that only support single shot you need to wield more than one of them.


For me it is not clear if wide burst use a minor multiple attack action or not (IIRC German translation seem to explicitly mention that it doesn't which also seem to be supported by SRM ruling which weight heavy for me so this is the ruling I will go with as well for now, but I was in the other camp until a few weeks ago - this indirectly also mean you can't take anticipation while wide bursting with a single firearm). So if you can choose between the two readings why not pick the one that seem to be perfectly balanced rather than the one that completely break the game?

For me it is not clear if full auto can use a minor multiple attack action (and thus qualify for anticipation) or not, but allowing anticipation with full auto will 100% break the game (and is against SRM ruling) I also choose to rule that full auto never use a minor multiple attack action which mean that anticipation does not qualify for full auto attacks (even though I acknowledge that the other reading is also supported by RAW)



because nothing in 6e's text supports it.
And noting in the text contradicts it....

Same as nothing in the text contradict if you wish to fire your single shot weapon 10 times in a major action by also using a minor action (which is likely not the intended reading).

Perhaps one of them is correct (according to RAI).

Perhaps both of them are wrong (according to RAI) and RAI of the original author is that it should be resolved in a third way.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: 0B on <08-08-20/1356:04>
Xenon, I think you and I are at the same point. There's too many "maybes" and "perhaps" that any ruling we make is just a guess at the author's intent. I think it's a pointless exercise to guess at the intent of the rule unless we actually get official RAI.

Which, honestly, is a more troubling issue than whether or not the rule is balanced in the first place.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <08-08-20/1403:10>
Xenon, I think you and I are at the same point. There's too many "maybes" and "perhaps" that any ruling we make is just a guess at the author's intent. I think it's a pointless exercise to guess at the intent of the rule unless we actually get official RAI.

Which, honestly, is a more troubling issue than whether or not the rule is balanced in the first place.

The problem is you're not needing one author's RAI, but (at least) two.  The problem, as I explained earlier, is likely that the two authors writing the two different rules simply weren't creating rules in concert with one another.

So raw is what it is.

I'm convinced the SRM ruling IS fully RAW.  But yes the rules are ambiguous enough that you can come up with some pretty different outcomes by reading key rules interactions differently... but this one is imo superior because it doesn't require additional adjudications.  The less you have to make additional rules/clarifications to make something "work", the better.  Any other end state, even if RAW, will require additional rulings/clarifications that are themselves of dubious "RAWness" to iron out some serious wrinkles.  SRM's does not, and therefore that's why I think it's the best way to reconcile the two very different rules.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: 0B on <08-08-20/1420:42>
The problem is you're not needing one author's RAI, but (at least) two.  The problem, as I explained earlier, is likely that the two authors writing the two different rules simply weren't creating rules in concert with one another.

You're right- and honestly, this wasn't as obvious to me until I looked at the rules for 5e, either, regarding firing modes and multiple attacks. The goal of 6e was to simplify things: if they only simplified firing modes (IE, there's just a base cap on number of attacks), or they only simplified multi attacks (IE, the cap depends on the firing mode), then things would still make sense, RAW. As it stands, they didn't provide guidance in either direction. Without anticipation, this isn't a huge issue, because it's harder to get dice pools in the 18+ range in 6e. And even if someone did want to make 18 attacks with one die each, they'd be more likely to glitch than to hit anything.

Without the context of 5e CRB, I don't think RAW caps attacks the way Xenon says it does. I don't think it's fair to base an interpretation of rules on books that haven't been published yet and moves that don't exist, especially with CRB rules. If you take 5e rules into account, then that perspective makes more sense.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Lormyr on <08-08-20/1747:08>
I think it can be on some tables. A optimized anticipation is much worse but you can see a non optimized one punch man fairly easily wreck havoc. A table with optimized players might know how to deal with things like this better.

Now some of this stems form I am not a fan of the edge system.  I think most of those actions should have been developed in a minor action system. For something like multiple attacks/anticipation. Major action attack, each minor action you spend allows you to attack another target but you split the pools evenly, you can spend additional minor actions to use your full pool on one of those per minor action.

So for example you want to shoot 3 people 1 major and 3 minor actions. You want to shoot 3 people with no penalty  1 major 6 minor actions.  Maybe you only have 4 minor actions, so you shoot 3 and only one of the shots is at your full dice pool, the remaining 2 are at 1/3 your pool.

I'd of wanted magic on a similar system, want to cast a more powerful lightning bolt not only is the drain higher but it costs extra minor actions. Some spells at their default might cost additional minor actions. If you don't have enough minor actions it carries over into your next turn.

That might work out decently, and would certainly be better than what we have presently. I personally prefer a less action packed round, as it moves the game along faster, but that is purely a matter of personal taste. One attack, one movement, and one miscellaneous thing per turn suits me just fine.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Sir Ludwig on <08-19-20/2315:03>
Good evening,

I need some help.  I will admit, it's probably an ID-10-T issue. 

Xenon posted a link to Mission FAQ, but it doesn't seem to work (for me).  When I "googled it" the answer I ended up at Living Campaign Discussion part of this forums, but that didn't seem right either.   

Could someone help me?

Thanks,
SL
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <08-19-20/2323:53>
I know it's a bit of a downer but I'm not aware of it being made available anywhere yet other than the CDT private channels.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Sir Ludwig on <08-19-20/2330:05>
SSDR,

Thanks, that makes me feel better on why I couldn't find it.

Best,
SL
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Xenon on <08-20-20/0205:11>
It was made (perhaps not intentionally) publicly available (for awhile).
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <08-20-20/0328:36>
v1 did get linked half a day ago in SRMO discord, but they're working on v1.1 (v1.2?) so v1 isn't official yet.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: 0B on <08-20-20/2200:55>
They still have a link in the SRMO discord- search on "v1" or "dropbox" and you'll find it. Discord (https://srmissionsonline.com/discord/) link
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Xenon on <08-21-20/0528:42>
(edited the opening post)
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: 0B on <08-21-20/1854:53>
I hate to start up another argument again that goes nowhere, but... well, who am I kidding, this interests me.

Let's say a PC has one weapon. Let's make it a knife, to avoid any firing mode nonsense since that's the main source of confusion.

If there are two enemies in front of them, would you let that PC make a multiple attack, splitting their dice pool evenly between those two opponents? Why or why not?
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <08-21-20/1919:32>
With a knife, they'd have to be really close to each other. Make it a sword and I probably would.

Quote
A character can attack more than one opponent,
assuming ammunition, reach, and enemy
placement allow
.

You would not be allowed to Anticipate that, though, since it's not a Ranged Attack.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: 0B on <08-21-20/1940:20>
With a knife, they'd have to be really close to each other. Make it a sword and I probably would.

Quote
A character can attack more than one opponent,
assuming ammunition, reach, and enemy
placement allow
.

You would not be allowed to Anticipate that, though, since it's not a Ranged Attack.

Ah, gotcha, so you'd have to throw the knives. Do thrown weapons use a firing mode? I haven't been able to find any. My instinct says "single shot," but if you can't multi attack using SS, then that contradicts the example given with shuriken.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <08-21-20/1942:21>
hopefully they will come out with a melee version of anticipation.


edit to add for normal multiple attacks me as a GM if the person has the minor to move I'd let them attack/move/attack and split their dice pool.

1. its cool, 2 I don't see a balance issue, 3. you are a cyborg ninja go for it.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: 0B on <08-21-20/1956:33>
If they do, I would still want it to have a cap on number of attacks. As a GM, if a player said "I split my pool into two melee attacks on the same target," I'd be like "sure, that matches my interpretation of RAW." It'd be a poor decision against a powerful opponent, but not a bad idea against a weaker one.

If the same player said "I split my pool into one hundred attacks on the same target, using anticipation," I would tell them to go pound sand.

If thrown weapons are the odd exception that allow you to make multiple attacks with SS/no firing mode involved, at least you have the limitation of "no, you can't reasonably fit 100 shruikens into your hand to throw."
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Xenon on <08-21-20/2212:20>
As I read it;


Following this reasoning gives;

This seem very consistent. And also not game breaking.
And it give dual wielding (and the ambidextrous quality) a clear purpose.
In my book that is what I would call a "Win - Win"

If they do, I would still want it to have a cap on number of attacks.
As I read it, the point of dual wielding two weapons is that you get to attack twice in one major action (with no option to use edge on your offhand attack -unless you are ambidextrous).

If you allow attacking twice in a single major action with a single weapon then what is the point of dual wielding? Or the ambidextrous quality for that matter...?


If thrown weapons are the odd exception that allow you to make multiple attacks with SS/no firing mode involved, at least you have the limitation of "no, you can't reasonably fit 100 shruikens into your hand to throw."
SR6 p. 251 Throwing Knives/Shuriken
Up to (Agility/2) of these weapons can be readied for throwing with a Ready Weapon action.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: 0B on <08-22-20/0132:26>
  • If you have one firearm in single shot mode then you can only ever fire it once per major action
  • If you have two firearms then you can fire both of them at the same target or at two different targets by adding the multiple attack action and splitting your pool
  • If you have two firearm and take anticipation then you can fire both of them at two different targets without splitting the pool

Following this reasoning gives;
  • If you have one melee weapon then you can only attack with it once per major action
  • If you wield a melee weapon in each hand then you can attack with both of them at the same target or at two different targets by adding the multiple attack action and splitting your pool
  • If you wield a melee weapon in one hand and a firearm in the other then you can attack with both of them at the same target or at two different targets by adding the multiple attack action and splitting your pool

Once again: nothing in the rules states that you can only attack with a weapon once per major action. SS and SA do not mention actions, or even attacks. BF mentions "You can fire four rounds in an attack." An attack is not the same as an action, though an attack can be an action (And you can have multiple attacks, through the multiple attack action). FA allows you to do multiple attacks explicitly without the multiple attack action (And is the only firing mode that mentions multiple attack). Nothing in the rules states that melee weapons can be used once per attack.

BF explicitly avoids the term "action" when it says "attack." This means that the firing mode is associated with an attack, not with an action.

If you're using an interpretation of the rules where if it doesn't explicitly restrict or permit something, then it is restricted, so be it. That is not how I interpret the rule.

Multiple attack explicitly lists what the restrictions are (Ammo, reach, enemy placement). It does not list "the number of weapons you have" as a restriction on how many attacks you can make. It does not list "ranks in your combat skill" as a restriction on how many attacks you can make. It does not list "current wound modifier" as a restriction on how many attacks you can make. You could make an argument that all three of these could be restrictions (Presence of Ambidextrous quality, skill being a restriction in previous editions, exhaustion having an effect on your speed, etc.), but why would they?

If the number of weapons you have is a restriction on how many attacks you can make, why is this not listed in the rules? My stance is that if a rule isn't in a rule book, then it isn't a rule for that rule book.

If it would make more sense for a rule to be in a rule book, that's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that the rule isn't in that rule book. Using the non-existent rule would be either a house rule or a ruling.

Quote
If they do, I would still want it to have a cap on number of attacks.
As I read it, the point of dual wielding two weapons is that you get to attack twice in one major action (with no option to use edge on your offhand attack -unless you are ambidextrous).

If you allow attacking twice in a single major action with a single weapon then what is the point of dual wielding? Or the ambidextrous quality for that matter...?

Who says you have to dual-wield two swords? Practically speaking, using a sword and a ranged weapon will keep your options open, and allow you to make either a melee or ranged attack without having to ready an action. There's nothing wrong with the aesthetic of dual-wielding, either.

5E explicitly mentioned attacking multiple times with a single weapon, and that edition still had dual wielding. But personally, it shouldn't matter what rules 5e had for firing modes or multiple attack, the rules for 6e CRB must stand on their own. They cannot involve hypothetical rules from splat books that do not exist, either.


Quote
If thrown weapons are the odd exception that allow you to make multiple attacks with SS/no firing mode involved, at least you have the limitation of "no, you can't reasonably fit 100 shruikens into your hand to throw."
SR6 p. 251 Throwing Knives/Shuriken
Up to (Agility/2) of these weapons can be readied for throwing with a Ready Weapon action.

"Small weapons such as throwing knives and shuriken can be readied in bunches, with a total number equal to the character’s Agility attribute pulled into the character’s off-hand with a single Ready Weapon action." (p. 44)

Hey, we found another rule with two different definitions! Let's say I have 3 minor actions and 1 major action. Is there anything stopping me from doing two minor actions to ready either Agility or Agility*2  weapons, and then doing a multi-attack with all of them using the minor+major I have left?

The p. 44 implies this with the use of "single" Ready Weapon action. To say that a single Ready Weapon action pulls AGI weapons into off-hand implies that non-single Ready Weapon actions, or "multiple" would do something different. You pull AGI weapons into your off-hand in a single ready weapon action. I take another single ready weapon action, and pull another AGI weapons.

The p. 251 definition doesn't explicitly say "single." This one, I would rule the other way. It doesn't explicitly say "single," and the condition is "Up to (Agility/2) of these weapons can be readied for throwing." The Ready Action is the condition for you to throw weapons.

In the other case, a single Ready Action is the condition for pulling a certain amount of weapons into your off-hand, with each bunch readied for throwing. It says nothing about how many bunches you can throw at a time, or indeed how many weapons you can throw at a time.

It's like this: If I say "I like houses," then it means I like houses. If I say, "I like red houses," then it means I like red houses. I might like blue houses, or I might dislike blue houses. There is no information one way or the other.

The p. 251 definition is more clear, and I would make a ruling that you should go off of that one, but who's to say which one is the intended rule? Even if we say that the "single" is meaningless under p. 44, the amount of weapons is still contradictory.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Xenon on <08-22-20/0354:55>
Once again: nothing in the rules states that you can only attack with a weapon once per major action.
There are unfortunately a lot of things that the rules don't explicitly state in this edition.
But most of the alternative readings are silly, crazy or down-right game breaking so...


That is not how I interpret the rule.
I wish I could find a clear explicit rule that prevent you from you from firing that single shot weapon 8 times in a single major action, but I can't. So if you wish to rule it like that. then you are free to do that.

But honestly now, do that reading make sense to you...?


An attack is not the same as an action, though an attack can be an action
It take one Major Attack Action to align the weapon on your target and perform one Narrow Burst Attack.

SR5 p. 42 Major Actions - Attack
A character may perform one of a variety of forms of attack with this Major Action.

If you wish to align your gun for second Narrow Burst Attack then you take a second Major Attack Action. Your first Major Action ended once you released the trigger of that first attack.

If you are wielding two firearms (one in each hand) then you can align both of them at the same time and then perform an attack with each of them at the same time, in the same Major Attack Action. This, however, require that you also take a Minor Multiple Attack Action and split the pool between your two attacks.

Once you let go of the trigger of your both weapons the Major Action is considered to be over.



FA allows you to do multiple attacks explicitly without the multiple attack action
Precisely. A regular Full Auto attack include the option to attack multiple targets or the same target more than once. This is within the limit of what you can do with your regular Major Attack Action. Full Auto act as an exception and it let you attack multiple times with a single firearm. But at a cost of 6 AR.


Ruling that you can also do the exact same thing with a single shot weapon, but without a cost of 6 AR, makes no sense at all(!) That is crazy talk! What would then the purpose of Full Auto be?!

Yes, since there are no explicit rule that describe this you are free to interpret it like that, but I highly doubt that this is how the rule is intended to be read.



If it would make more sense for a rule to be in a rule book, that's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that the rule isn't in that rule book. Using the non-existent rule would be either a house rule or a ruling.
For other editions I would 100% agree with you and if you followed me for the last 10 years or so you would know that I often used the same arguments you are using... but since they cut so many clarifying (or 'redundant' as they probably saw it) rules and examples you end up with a rule structure in 6e that is far from as strict as it used to be (I wish this wasn't the case, but it is).

In this edition it is not only OK, it is required, to use common sense (in a much broader sense than in previous editions).


Who says you have to dual-wield two swords?
SR6 p. 111 Multiple Attacks
...or using a sword in each hand...

(ask yourself why they would even mention "a sword in each hand" if the intention really was that you could just as easy do the same amount of attacks while wielding just one sword in one hand, and without off-hand penalties to boot?)

It is common practice in TTRPGs that you get access to more attacks if you wield two weapons compared to if you wield one weapon.

It is also common practice in TTRPGs that your off-hand attack is generally weaker than your main hand attack (unless you are ambidextrous).


All of the above is supported with the reading I am presenting to you.

None of the above is supported if you rule that you can also just do two attacks with the sword you have in your main hand (without off-hand penalties).


You swing your your melee weapon once, and then your Major Attack Action is over.

If you wish to swing your melee weapon a second time you better have enough Minor Actions to trade in for a second Major Attack Action.

If you wield two swords (one in each hand) then you can swing both of them at the same time in the same Major Attack Action (by adding a Minor Multiple Attack Action). Once you swinged your both swords the Major Attack Action is over.

Very streamlined with how firearms attacks would have been resolved. I like this a lot ;-)


Is there anything stopping me from doing two minor actions to ready either Agility or Agility*2  weapons, and then doing a multi-attack with all of them using the minor+major I have left?
Well, Ready Weapon is typically considered a Major Action, but besides that? Nope. You go ahead and rule it like that. No limit. Why should there be, right? Just spend a few turns to ready 200 throwing weapons. And then you anticipate the shit out of all of them. Yes. This seem to be the intended way to resolve this ;-)

Even though it does not explicitly say so it is clearly intended that Agility / 2 act as the limit on the amount of shurikens / throwing knives you are allowed to Ready at the same time and are allowed to throw in one Major Attack Action.

Again. Apply some common sense is not forbidden.
I think you might have a very difficult time playing 6e if you don't start to embrace this mindset when reading the rules.... :-/
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Finstersang on <08-22-20/0544:20>
You swing your your melee weapon once, and then your Major Attack Action is over.

If you wish to swing your melee weapon a second time you better have enough Minor Actions to trade in for a second Major Attack Action.

If you wield two swords (one in each hand) then you can swing both of them at the same time in the same Major Attack Action (by adding a Minor Multiple Attack Action). Once you swinged your both swords the Major Attack Action is over.

Very streamlined with how firearms attacks would have been resolved. I like this a lot ;-)

Problem is: Melee attack Actions are not supposed to be always just one strike or stab, they can also be a flurry of attacks. And multiple strikes and stabs could be directed at multiple targets, just like the multiple Bullets of BF or FA attacks.

I think it makes sense to treat multiple Attacks in melee slightly differently here: It´s absolutely reasonable that a skilled knife fighter can try to stab 2-3 people in one aggressive, flurry of Attack (or that some drugged-up punk just aimlessly tries to step everyone around her...) without dual wielding. In fact, that´s not even that different from ranged combat, as BF/FA weapons and knife throws also allow this to a certain degree.

It´s also hardly a game- or immersion-breaker, even with Anticipation: The range for possible melee targets is limited anyways. If you try to gang up on a Katana-wielding Samurai who had the time to prepare for a show-off counterattack, you risk that the whole gang gets sliced up. TBH, that´s the least problematic use of Anticipation, compared to all the other broken stuff you can do with it. That´s just the rule of cool in action.

This begs just one question: What´s points use of Dual-Wielding when you can do multiple Attacks without it?

How about allowing multiple Attacks against the same target? That´s a different thing. If the Samurai wields two Katanas, he could still attack multiple targets with them by using the multiple Attack option, but also go for a double Attack against one mook, with the potential for more damage. Same for a Gunslinger with two SS/SA Pistols.

I think that this is supposed to the RAI here, it´s just fragged up and obfuscated as usual. I even remember some little additional blurb in the (german?) rulebook/forums/errata/whatever that further supports this reading, but try finding shit in this mess  ::) I might be mistaken here, though. Either way, if not RAI, it´s a reasonable houserule:

When performing Multiple Attacks, only one Attack per weapon can be directed at one single target.

That is not how I interpret the rule.
I wish I could find a clear explicit rule that prevent you from you from firing that single shot weapon 8 times in a single major action, but I can't. So if you wish to rule it like that. then you are free to do that.

But honestly now, do that reading make sense to you...?

Yup, that one´s bonkers.

However, there might be some instances where you could perform multiple attacks even with a SS/SA weapon:   

A character can attack more than one opponent, assuming ammunition, reach, and enemy
placement
allow it.


Rule of cool strikes again: If the targets are positioned in a nice line, you might shoot through them with just one bullet. Classic Action Movie shit. I´d say it´s GM`s call if and when you are allowed to this, though  8)
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <08-22-20/0552:24>
Note that the examples of multiple attacks do not list using the same melee weapon against the same enemy twice. With FA explicitly allowing you to target the same person with the same weapon, I see no reason to allow you a double-slash on the same target without double-wielding.

As for readying throwing weapons: Since they're held in the offhand and pulled from there, yeah you could reasonably ready multiple times, to a reasonable constraint.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: penllawen on <08-22-20/0559:22>
I think it makes sense to treat multiple Attacks in melee slightly differently here: It´s absolutely reasonable that a skilled knife fighter can try to stab 2-3 people in one aggressive, flurry of Attack (or that some drugged-up punk just aimlessly tries to step everyone around her...) without dual wielding. In fact, that´s not even that different from ranged combat, as BF/FA weapons and knife throws also allow this to a certain degree.

It´s also hardly a game- or immersion-breaker, even with Anticipation: The range for possible melee targets is limited anyways. If you try to gang up on a Katana-wielding Samurai who had the time to prepare for a show-off counterattack, you risk that the whole gang gets sliced up. TBH, that´s the least problematic use of Anticipation, compared to all the other broken stuff you can do with it. That´s just the rule of cool in action.
I agree 100%.

I'd further add: I think melee characters are relatively underpowered compared to ranged ones (although it does depend on GM fiat on fight layouts / movement ranges / tactical positioning), and don't think some gentle buffs to them are a bad idea.

Quote
This begs just one question: What´s points use of Dual-Wielding when you can do multiple Attacks without it?
Something Shadowrun has always wrestled with, tbf. I don't think any edition's action economy has ever had a good answer to this.

Quote
How about allowing multiple Attacks against the same target? That´s a different thing. If the Samurai wields two Katanas, he could still attack multiple targets with them by using the multiple Attack option, but also go for a double Attack against one mook, with the potential for more damage. Same for a Gunslinger with two SS/SA Pistols.
Oooooh. I think you're on to something here...! It's just a little gamey/artificial, would be my only (minor) objection, but I can dig it.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Xenon on <08-22-20/0707:28>
Melee attack Actions are not supposed to be always just one strike or stab, they can also be a flurry of attacks. And multiple strikes and stabs could be directed at multiple targets, just like the multiple Bullets of BF or FA attacks.
A flurry of attacks against a single target with a single weapon will probably still always be resolved as a single attack action (not as several individual attacks). Just like firing 4 bullets at a single target with a single firearm is resolved as one single narrow burst attack action (not as several single shot attacks).

Having said that, I fully expect that future supplements will introduce advanced attack options for melee...


How about allowing multiple Attacks against the same target?
I fully think this is intended, yes (and I wrote that above as well).

Attacking the same target once if you have one weapon
Attacking the same target twice if you have two weapons

But if we also allow you to attack multiple targets with one melee weapon (which I am not against, sweeping attacks or cleave attacks is very much a "thing" when it comes to melee attacks in games like this) then we also need to introduce a limit.

Either you will hit all targets (friend or foe) in a frontal cone (similar to a melee version of suppressive fire from previous edition). Or the number of targets you can make with a single melee weapon is limited in some way (perhaps to weapon skill / 2 like it was in previous edition).
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: penllawen on <08-22-20/0803:48>
Or the number of targets you can make with a single melee weapon is limited in some way (perhaps to weapon skill / 2 like it was in previous edition).
Wouldn't movement distance be the most elegant way of handling that? You can't attack more people than you can move between in the single turn. 10m cap restricts you quite naturally to only a few targets.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: 0B on <08-22-20/1544:03>
Again. Apply some common sense is not forbidden.
I think you might have a very difficult time playing 6e if you don't start to embrace this mindset when reading the rules.... :-/

I think perhaps this is where the breakdown is happening. I see a difference between Rulings and Rules. Rules are what the text explicitly states, Rulings are how you interpret that text. And no, I don't play any game intending to stick strictly to RAW. At the same time, I don't expect anyone to conform to my Rulings. This is the dictionary difference (https://wikidiff.com/rule/ruling), and the Old-School Primer is where I draw my definition from in the context of TTRPGs.

I would probably houserule in the 5e method for handling multiple attacks, personally, but that doesn't mean it's a rule. You would draw upon systems in other RPGs where you get one attack per weapon. I don't think that's the wrong decision, but it's not the one I like.

I dislike this houserule/ruling because it doesn't make sense with the kinesics. When you stab someone, you do not just extend your arm, you are moving your whole body with it. If there are two people on either side of you, both within range, it takes just as much work to multi-attack both of them with two weapons as it is to multiattack with one weapon.

With two weapons, you would lean and thrust into one of them with one weapon, then lean and thrust into the other one with your other weapon. (Or slash. Or stab. Doesn't matter.) With one weapon, you would lean and thrust into one of them with your only weapon, and then lean and thrust into the other one with the same weapon. The only time two weapons would be quicker is if they are close together: you thrust into both of them at the same time. But in that same situation, you could make a powerful two-handed slash against both of them with one motion of the blade.

HOWEVER. Simulationism isn't king, and there are times where you disregard realism to make a simpler rule.

Note that the examples of multiple attacks do not list using the same melee weapon against the same enemy twice. With FA explicitly allowing you to target the same person with the same weapon, I see no reason to allow you a double-slash on the same target without double-wielding.

As for readying throwing weapons: Since they're held in the offhand and pulled from there, yeah you could reasonably ready multiple times, to a reasonable constraint.

Yeah, I'd hope that any GM would stop the nonsense after the fourth or fifth ready action to put knives in hand...

The rules specifically say you may make multiple attacks against the same target:

Whether it’s shooting a bunch of bullets at multiple people, throwing shuriken at a marauding group, or using a sword in each hand, there may be times you want to deliver multiple attacks at once. This can be against multiple targets, or you
could attempt two attacks against the same target.


They don't say anything about being able to multi-attack with throwing knives, or multi-attacking with bows, or dual wielding clubs or knives, either. If we say that the examples are the only situations where multi-attack can occur, I think we limit what we can do.

From a realism standpoint, I feel like it'd be easier for someone to make two attacks against the same target then it would be to make two attacks against two different targets. This is regardless of whether it's melee or ranged: with melee, you have to shift your whole body. With ranged, you have to switch back to "scanning the horizon" vision, then switch to "focus" on the new target. You also have to adjust where your weapon is pointing, and possibly your entire firing stance if they are in a different direction than your last target.

Maybe this is hard to describe. The best way is this: Space yourself out between two walls so that you need to lean towards a wall in order to hit it with your hand (gently with your palm). Use a corner wall if you have to. Consider how long it takes to hit one wall twice with the same hand, to hit both walls with the same hand, to hit one wall twice using both hands, and to hit two walls using two hands. If you're on a corner wall, you can also experiment with being closer and farther from the corner.

This is substantially harder when the wall is trying to hit you. This is my order of speed from fastest to slowest:

1. Hit one wall with both hands at the same time
2. Hit one wall twice with one hand, or with two hands to simulate that you may not have an opening for both weapons at the same time
3. Hit two walls with two hands (If you can do this at the same time, the walls are too close for this experiment)
4. Hit two walls using one hand

To me, speed here doesn't change much if it's melee or shooting with a weapon. If you want to simulate how long it takes to adjust aim, simply look down the "sights" of your finger gun and say "bang" instead of tapping the wall and flick your wrist to simulate recoil.

You might arguably say that you can shoot two weapons quicker if you're not looking at where one of them is aiming, but that is a horrifying concept to me. Still, SR tend towards superheroic moreso than realistic.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Sir Ludwig on <08-23-20/0207:26>
Xenon,

Thanks for the new link!

Best,
SL

So, Mission FAQ (http://"https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wqh58dcly04t6m/Missions%20SR6%20FAQ%20v1.pdf?dl=0") is up.

Edit. No it isn't.

Edit2. Yes, now it is again. New link (https://www.dropbox.com/s/7wqh58dcly04t6m/Missions%20SR6%20FAQ%20v1.pdf?dl=0").


It state/clarify that multiple attacks with firearms is only when you attack with 2 different firearms and Anticipation is only used when attacking two different targets with 2 different guns while at the same time having the ambidextrous quality.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <08-23-20/1616:02>
I've stated my opinion on Anticipation in SRM elsewhere: It's not how I parse the rules, but it's a balanced restriction that works well within the context of SRM.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: MercilessMing on <09-03-20/1738:49>
wow!  anticipation again.
I was a little disappointed but not surprised that SRM painted anticipation into a little corner where only a gadget character was going to use it.  But it's not going to break the game just because no one's going to use it.  It doesn't contradict any rules, and that's about as good as you can get without making house rules.

Personally, I think all Anticipation needs to be a powerful, but not uber edge boost without making a ton of rules is a reasonable max #attacks limit for each firing mode, and no doubling up attacks when using it.  4-6 seem good to me for FA.  None of this skill/2 or other math.  Just make it static, that works for SR6.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <09-03-20/1811:54>
Under RAW you can't combine Anticipation with FA, and I am fine with that restriction.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: 0B on <09-03-20/1923:32>
Honestly, you could just have the max as "skill" without it being too game-breaky, since skills tend to be lower in this edition anyways.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Xenon on <09-04-20/0234:06>
I don't know......The more I think about it......

Since you have two hands, limiting it to two seems reasonable.

There does not seem to be any scenario where attacking with SS, SA, BF or FA also use a Multiple Attack Minor Action, which mean that none of them are technically eligible for Anticipation.

But when you fire two firearms at the same time it seem as if you do.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Xenon on <09-04-20/0236:38>
Also,

The other 4 Edge Boost Action is Big Speech which let you act as an assistant in a teamwork test with yourself as the leader. Adding your hits from the teamwork test as a dice pool modifier to your actual test. On average this give you a positive dice pool modifier of 1/3 the size of your original dice pool. Anticipation should be roughly as "powerful" as this.

Among the 5 Edge Boost Actions you find Called Shots. Either increasing DV of a single attack by 3 (instead of using the Called Shot Minor Action that increase DV by 2 but give you a negative dice pool modifier of 4 dice) or disarming the opponent (without dealing any damage at all). Anticipation, should probably be considered slightly less "powerful" than this.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <09-04-20/0414:00>
Honestly, you could just have the max as "skill" without it being too game-breaky, since skills tend to be lower in this edition anyways.
I can understand not putting in a hard cap in the rules, since abusive cases are rare once you follow RAW on full-auto not combining with Anticipation, but having your skill rank as max would work nicely in preventing said abusive cases. Even under RAW I know one way to throw a dozen attacks with Anticipation.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: 0B on <09-04-20/1115:35>
That's the issue, though: it's unclear how many attacks you can make using multiple attacks. Most people are interpreting the rule using 5e as the basis of RAI, and I don't think that's really a viable solution. Xenon bases it on how many weapons you have, and honestly that makes even less sense to me, since it's easier to attack twice with the same weapon than it is to attack once with two weapons.

I don't think there's enough to support firing mode having an effect on multi-attack, RAW. Some people do. If the rule is unclear, then shouldn't there be some sort of clarification? I'd even settle for a RAI from the developer even if it's not a point of errata.

It's true that abusive cases are rare, but the rule is still nonstandard for non-abusive cases. I don't think anyone can see attacking twice with the same weapon as abusive, but it might not be supported RAW.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: penllawen on <09-04-20/1219:11>
My current 5e houserules have an anticipation-style full-pool multiattack. I balanced it through the action economy. 1 Complex to start the attack, +1 Simple per extra target. (My rules also give people more actions, along the lines of 6e, instead of multiple passes.)
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <09-04-20/1223:26>
My current 5e houserules have an anticipation-style full-pool multiattack. I balanced it through the action economy. 1 Complex to start the attack, +1 Simple per extra target. (My rules also give people more actions, along the lines of 6e, instead of multiple passes.)

Which is how I thought they should have done it in 6e instead of with all these dumb edge moves. Make the economy entirely Major+ minor action based. Be pretty liberal with it for mundane actions that can only be accomplished with minor actions available through ware.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Xenon on <09-04-20/1418:49>
I don't think anyone can see attacking twice with the same weapon as abusive, but it might not be supported RAW.
If you have a single weapon then I honestly can't see how anyone can rule that you are allowed to fire it more than once in one single attack action, let alone the entire magazine as one single attack action. It makes no sense. With such a reading there would also be no point to ever use full auto.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <09-04-20/1455:05>
I don't think anyone can see attacking twice with the same weapon as abusive, but it might not be supported RAW.
If you have a single weapon then I honestly can't see how anyone can rule that you are allowed to fire it more than once in one single attack action, let alone the entire magazine as one single attack action. It makes no sense. With such a reading there would also be no point to ever use full auto.

Exactly.

As a point of academic principle: I would have rathered that the burst fire rules were, instead of what they are, expressions of how many attacks you're allowed to make when multiple attacking.  But on the other hand, we haven't had to resolve an attack test for every bullet since 1st edition.  Rightly so.

So, meh.  Frankly, I'm still rather satisfied with the SRM interpretation.  It works without violating any rules AND without having to make new rules.  AND it makes Anticipation, a 4 edge cost action, no longer be universally better than the 5 cost actions.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Lormyr on <09-04-20/1503:55>
I personally always found the wording clear.

Full auto lets you to make multiple attacks without having to take the minor action.

Multiple attacks allows you to take multiple attacks against multiple opponents, assuming ammunition permits - it doesn't say shit about firing mode.

Anticipation lets you make multiple attacks without splitting your dice pool.

Now I think anticipation needs nerfed hard, but as written, injecting a single shot mode restriction is flatly a house rule. It says absolutely nothing, in any of multiple attacks or anticipation, about that being a problem. Your restriction is how many bullets do you have in that thing.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <09-04-20/1532:33>
...Now I think anticipation needs nerfed hard, but as written, injecting a single shot mode restriction is flatly a house rule...

I may be missing your point, and if so I apologize.

But if your point is what I think it is, I'd like to rebut:  SRM's ruling is not injecting a single shot restriction.  SRM's ruling is that you use one rule in certain scenarios, and the other rule in other.  If you want to shoot more than one bullet (from one gun) in one attack, then you don't use multiple attacks.  Period.  You use firing mode rules instead.

Part of the reasoning is how mechanically superior it'd be to shoot one target with 2 bullets rather than doing a SA attack.  And by extension, that'd also be true of shooting 2 targets with 2 bullets each instead of performing one BF Wide burst.  Or shooting X targets at -0 AR instead of shooting X targets at -6 AR with a FA burst.  And so on.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Lormyr on <09-04-20/1608:46>
I think you understand me right correctly SSDR, but I don't think that logic holds up. If memory serves, and I am away from my books right now, multiple attacks says you can attack more than one opponent - not attack an opponent more than once.

And if that is the case, then SA remains good because you can't otherwise put more than one bullet/take more than one shot against an individual target.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <09-04-20/1624:08>
I think you understand me right correctly SSDR, but I don't think that logic holds up. If memory serves, and I am away from my books right now, multiple attacks says you can attack more than one opponent - not attack an opponent more than once.

And if that is the case, then SA remains good because you can't otherwise put more than one bullet/take more than one shot against an individual target.

Setting aside the issue of more than one attack per target then...


Spending a minor action to attack X people is profoundly more advantageous than taking -6 AR to attack X people.  FA would be a trap, not a viable option.  Forget being an advantageous feature entirely!
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Lormyr on <09-04-20/1632:03>
I get your point, and agree that in general it would probably be inferior. But that is also not universally true. You might really need that minor action for something else, or be firing upon enemies who are getting edge off your attack due to DR anyhow, just for example.

Also, just because FA is a mechanically bad rule doesn't meant Anticipate/multiple attack don't function the way they are written to balance out the bad rule. Saying it needs changed is cool, but I also genuinely believe the SRM interpretation is more than just that, it is a hard rule change. We're adding language to the situation (preventing single shot) that simply does not exist.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <09-04-20/1649:56>
...I also genuinely believe the SRM interpretation is more than just that, it is a hard rule change. We're adding language to the situation (preventing single shot) that simply does not exist.

So, the alternative to what SRM did (say the rules don't work together at all) is to say they work together freely, or to impose some sort of limitations (from out of the blue?) on how they work together.

Certain scenarios could work just fine where both rules freely work together.  But munchkins gonna munch, man.  Being allowed to shoot 2 targets means you're also being allowed to shoot 10 targets, since there's no limitation given.  As problematic as shooting 10 targets with an ostensibly non-fully-automatic weapon is, that's not even the biggest problem.  No, it gets downright insane when you start multiple-attacking bursts.  If nothing stops you from shooting 10 targets in SS mode, then nothing's stopping you from shooting 10 targets in SA mode.  Many SA pistols have 20+ ammo capacity, and are (under this reasoning) more capable of sending bullets downrange than a proper machine-gun "limited" to the FA firing mode is. 
It gets even more extreme at the BF level.. but it also starts simply breaking down, mechanically.  Do you split dice pools THEN split dice pools? Or split dice pools AND split dice pools (for a net result of only splitting once, in effect)? And lo, naturally one is going to Anticipate.  Which splits get refilled? Is there a timing on splitting, and if so, where does Anticipate trigger in the process?

You REALLY have to start making up/adding rules in order for the two different rules (multiple attacks and firing modes) to both exist in the same attack.  SRM took the path of least disturbance. Saying, for example, you're limited to a max # of targets in your multiple attack = your skill ranks... THAT'D be making up a rule.  Whether or not it's reasonable is a different question of "is it making up a new rule".  Saying "you use one or the other, but not both" is not making up a new rule.  It's assigning discrete bailiwicks TO those published rules.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <09-04-20/1706:05>
Just make the limit 2 without autofire and for anticipation. That’s all the rule needs to change. Shooting someone twice with the same gun vs two guns is almost entirely styalistic. Their are minor perks to either choice. The requirement of it being two weapons is not balance based. If you want to soft fix the rule in missions that’s fine. But it should be based on balance not someone wanting their niche of two gun guy being supported.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Lormyr on <09-04-20/1748:38>
All I am saying is that it reads crystal clearly to me that there is no restriction based on fire mode, and therefore limiting that, is creating rules not in place.

It's like when Mikey told me that the one example DR character's armor from multiple cyberlimbs didn't stack. Nowhere does it say that.

Now as for the rest of the argument you made, basically is this balanced, I get you, and mostly agree. I still believe the problem is just with anticipate itself. Remove that, and is not longer an issue at all.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <09-04-20/1800:52>
It's not only a balance issue... the rules just don't work together very well.

Walk me through how you'd adjudicate a runner using two Uzis.. one in each hand, and each uzi doing multiple wide bursts.  Without adding any additional rules or restrictions.  (Because if we're gonna make stuff up, we may as well enter the house rules realm of discussion).
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Lormyr on <09-04-20/1942:45>
So I would do it exactly as written.

Multiple attacks on page 110 says "Whatever the case, to make multiple attacks, divide your attacking dice pool by the number of attacks made as evenly as possible.".

Wide burst on page 109 says "make a wide burst and split your dice pool between two targets"

Since we're wielding two uzis in wide burst, that means I am making 4 attacks.

Dice pool/4, or more literally, splitting my dice pool between two targets twice. Go.

I really don't see the big deal, unless/until Anticipation gets involved.

Edit: Also, to be clear in case it was lost, when I said there is no restriction firing modes above, I was specifically talking about Anticipate.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <09-04-20/2046:09>
Ok, I thought having you do the math might make my point.  I'll walk you thru what I'm getting at.

Multiple attacks split dice pool evenly.

Wide burts split dice pool across two targets.

Different flavors of the same thing?  No.  Not when you combine them, at least.

Runner holds an Uzi and pop-pops a multiple attack  on two targets (SS mode).  Split dice pool "evenly".  If the dice pool is evenly divisible by the number of attacks, ok no problem.  What if it's 13 dice across 2 attacks?  Evenly is 6.5 dice per attack.  It's impossible to roll 6.5 dice, so you have to either have 2 attacks at 6 dice each (losing a die in total) or have 1 attack at 7 and one at 6 (i.e. not even).  Which is it?  It doesn't look very clear cut to me.  And that's before we really even force the two rules to try to cohabitate.

My example was multiple wide bursts.  Ok so as above, but we're now also giving half the dice pool to each target of a wide burst.  If I do 2 wide bursts with 12 dice pool, that's 4 attacks on 4 different targets that each get 6 dice.  That doubles my original dice pool even without factoring in Anticipate.  It gets downright headache inducing if you double up and try to spread X attacks across >X targets.  If the first wide burst targets gangers 1 and 2, and the 2nd wide burst targets gangers 2 and 3, how many dice are you rolling at ganger 2, across one or two attacks? Because frankly what ganger 2 suffered by all rights ought to be a narrow burst.  Narrow and Wide bursts have different -ARs and +DVs, so it matters. Ugh.

So, I expect you'd say "no, half doesn't mean half the total, it's half what you assigned after multiple attacking, obviously".  Ok, so what's the citation to support imposing that timing? How do you disprove "evenly split between two targets is total dice pool/2"?  Me... I'd say that if you put half your dice pool to EACH target of a Wide Burst, then that's pretty strong circumstantial evidence you're not supposed to be able to multiattack wide bursts.  And if you can't multiattack wide bursts, why can you multiattack ANY burst?

My point here is this:  saying "you have to split for multiple attacks, AND THEN wide bursts only split that already split pool/subpool, not the total pool" is adding in a rule.  And that's doing more than what SRM did by saying "these rules don't have very much overlap on the venn diagram".
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Xenon on <09-05-20/0342:29>
Shooting someone twice with the same gun vs two guns is almost entirely styalistic.
As I read it:

Shooting someone twice with the same gun (double tapping in the same attack action) require that you use a SA firing mode. No multiple attacks minor action. No anticipation.

Shooting someone twice with the same gun (shooting them once and then shooting them once again as two separate attacks) require that you EITHER use two separate major actions OR that you use a weapon in FA firing mode. No multiple attacks minor action in either case. No anticipation.

Shooting someone twice by using two different guns (tapping the trigger of both weapons at the same time in the same attack action and resolving them as two different attacks) require that you take the multiple attacks action and split the dice pool. Eligible for anticipation.



Walk me through how you'd adjudicate a runner using two Uzis.. one in each hand, and each uzi doing multiple wide bursts.  Without adding any additional rules or restrictions.
As I read it:

If you wish to attack with both Uzi's at the same time you take a multiple attack minor action and split the pool (and this is what you would no longer split in case of anticipation).

Then you just resolve each attack individually according to the rules that apply to that attack. In the case of a wide burst you "split your dice pool between two targets and count each as a SA-mode shot" (as there are no multiple attack minor action involved here anticipation will have no effect here).
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <09-05-20/0354:24>
I disagree with the claim that split and split again is a rule introduction, but I've already made clear what I would consider reasonable intent. I'm still fine with SRM's ruling even if I disagree with it.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Xenon on <09-05-20/0405:28>
What if it's 13 dice across 2 attacks? 
You roll 7 dice for the attack you make with your main hand and 6 dice for the attack you do with your off-hand.


Since we're wielding two uzis in wide burst, that means I am making 4 attacks.
Ah.....
And as I see it you are making just two attacks, one wide burst attack with each weapon (two attacks = multiple attacks).
Interesting...


So in that case, what if you fire a single weapon in burst fire mode?
As I see it you are now making one narrow burst attack or one wide burst attack (one attack != multiple attacks).

With your reading would one regular wide burst attack with one single weapon also always require that you use a multiple attacks minor action...?? That unless you also spend a minor multiple attacks action you are not allowed to take the wide burst option, just the narrow burst option...?

I think perhaps this is where we might disagree?



I really don't see the big deal, unless/until Anticipation gets involved.
How would you resolve it if anticipation gets involved...?

I am hoping that you don't intend to let the player make four separate attack rolls without splitting at all as that would be pretty insane for just 4 edge. But it kinda sounds like that it?
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Lormyr on <09-05-20/0700:17>
So, I expect you'd say "no, half doesn't mean half the total, it's half what you assigned after multiple attacking, obviously".  Ok, so what's the citation to support imposing that timing? How do you disprove "evenly split between two targets is total dice pool/2"?  Me... I'd say that if you put half your dice pool to EACH target of a Wide Burst, then that's pretty strong circumstantial evidence you're not supposed to be able to multiattack wide bursts.  And if you can't multiattack wide bursts, why can you multiattack ANY burst?

My point here is this:  saying "you have to split for multiple attacks, AND THEN wide bursts only split that already split pool/subpool, not the total pool" is adding in a rule.  And that's doing more than what SRM did by saying "these rules don't have very much overlap on the venn diagram".

Ok, I see what you mean now. Yeah, those interactions and languages could use a wording adjustment to better cement whatever the intent is.

I personally read it like I described above, total dice pool/total number of targets. For me the cohabitation came in the form that a wide burst multi attack gets the SA AR penalty/DV bonus, where as another firing mode option with multi attack may not have.

Ah.....And as I see it you are making just two attacks, one wide burst attack with each weapon (two attacks = multiple attacks).
Interesting...

Where as I would say that what you are describing is taking one attack action, but each time you roll to hit and the opponent makes a defense test is a targeted attack. You took 2 attack actions, but made 4 total attacks.

With your reading would one regular wide burst attack with one single weapon also always require that you use a multiple attacks minor action...?? That unless you also spend a minor multiple attacks action you are not allowed to take the wide burst option, just the narrow burst option...?

I personally read it as a function of the firing mode itself that you may choose to target two characters with your attack rather than the standard, but you really could read that either way.

How would you resolve it if anticipation gets involved...?

I am hoping that you don't intend to let the player make four separate attack rolls without splitting at all as that would be pretty insane for just 4 edge. But it kinda sounds like that it?

Well using anticipate with the example of dual-wielding wide burst uzi's is strange, since anticipate only lasts for one attack action, it would be half wasted on the second hand? Let me go with a different example.

Player has a RPK HMG. Player is surrounded by a sea of baddies. Player uses anticipate, and shoots 25 of those baddies with a narrow burst at full dice pool, because that is what anticipate says he gets to do before he runs out of ammo. The only interpretation I may add is that you can't target more enemies than you dice pool, since you can't split what isn't there prior to recouping all the dice per target.

Now is that balanced? Hell no. But it reads very clearly to me, and I strive to run things as written. I will not penalize it just because I don't like it, that is the job of errata - to fix broken things.

Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Xenon on <09-05-20/0928:04>
I strive to run things as written.
It seem as if SR6 assumes that you also use common sense (more so than perhaps other editions).


But common sense was assumed in 5th edition as well. For example if your gun was using a 3-bullet burst mode. If you use common sense it is clear that when you pull the trigger once the gun will automatically fire 3 bullets (often in less than 0.2 seconds) and that all 3 rounds will always be aimed at the same target. There is no room for multiple attacks here (unless you attack with two weapons at the same time or you spend a complex action to aim at one target, tap the trigger once and then you aim at a second target and tap the trigger a second time, but then both targets also need to be within short or medium range).

...but with a strict reading of the text (without using common sense) it is probably rules legal (in SR5) to tap the trigger just once, but still hit 3 unique targets with one bullet each by spending a multiple attacks free action and splitting the pool three ways ;-)

...same as with a strict reading of the text (without using common sense) it is probably rules legal (in SR6) to tap the trigger 10 times in a single major attack action (no matter firing mode) by spending a multiple attacks minor action and splitting the pool 10 times ;-)
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Hobbes on <09-05-20/0952:53>
The following two statements need to be reconciled, somehow.   

Multiple Attacks on p. 42 "A character can attack more than one opponent, assuming ammunition, reach, and enemy
placement allow it. "
And:
Multiple Attacks on p. 111 " This can be against multiple targets, or you could attempt two attacks against the same target."

P. 111 grants the additional ability to attack the same target multiple times, and removes the "...ammunition, reach, and enemy placement..." limits.

Multiple Attacks also explicitly lets you mix and match different weapons, skills, firing modes.  SA Grenade Launcher and a Monowhip?  Go for it.  Throw Two Grenades?  Sure.  Gets extremely dumb, very fast, even the SRM ruling. 

I don't think the problem is Anticipate, the problem is that Multiple Attacks is a hot mess.  This thread has ?4? slightly different readings on how Multiple Attacks works and I don't think any of them are wrong. 

There are any other number of good proposals in this thread as well, but that one would be mine.

I think my Errata recommendation should have been to replace the Multiple Attacks on p. 111 with a simple "see p. 42 Multiple Attacks" and a clarification that Full Auto firing mode doesn't work with Anticipation.  And remove "for other rules, see Multiple Attacks below." from p. 110 "Off Hand Attacks".  Alas, I was young and foolish when the CRB came out.  ;  )

Hobbes House Rules would be to simply remove the Multiple Attacks action completely.  Anticipate only works with Wide Burst.  Add a Rock and Roll! Edge action for Full Auto Firing Mode that turns it into a moderate AoE attack.  Add a couple Melee Edge Actions for AoEs or Muti-Target attacks.  Attacking with two weapons is a +2 AR.  Ambidexterity grants edge when Attacking with two weapons.  Just lean into the Abstraction that is inherent in 6E. 


Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Xenon on <09-05-20/1026:28>
Multiple Attacks also explicitly lets you mix and match different weapons, skills, firing modes.
I don't see an issue with a character holding a firearm (such as a pistol or SMG) in one hand and a melee weapon in the other (for example a combat knife).

With a multiple attacks minor action he would then be allowed to attack with both at the same time. For example a wide burst attack with the SMG and at the same time performing a melee attack with the combat knife.


Attacking with two weapons is a +2 AR. 
Mm..... What if you are wielding two different type of weapons?
(what DV and AR value would you use in that case and what if one is set to Full Auto while the other is set to Burst Fire...)


I kinda like the idea that if you wield two weapons (or if you have two readied throwing knives or shurikens) then you are suddenly allowed to attack the same target twice (by splitting the pool and spending a multiple attacks minor action).

That the only other option if you wish to attack the same target twice (with a single weapon) is to use a firearm set to full auto (trading 6 AP for a minor action)
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Xenon on <09-05-20/1114:43>
So we have 3 readings of Single Shot, SA and Narrow Burst (using a single weapon):


And we have 4 different readings of Wide Burst (using a single weapon):


We have 3 readings when it comes to Full Auto (using a single weapon)


We have 3 readings of melee (using a single weapon):


When it comes to throwing weapons (I think) we have 4 different readings:


When it comes to dual wielding we have 3 different readings (I think):


Please let me know if I missed one (then I'll edit the post to include that as well).
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Lormyr on <09-05-20/1117:57>
It seem as if SR6 assumes that you also use common sense (more so than perhaps other editions).

Xenon, I don't think anything you said is wrong. To be blunt the primary reason I strive to run things as written is for consistency, especially for organized play which is just about all of my SR gaming. As just this thread itself demonstrates, "common sense" varies greatly from individual to individual.

I truly loathe when something a player has works a,b,c at this table, but x,y,z at that table.

The following two statements need to be reconciled, somehow.

I agree. It is hardly the only contradiction that needs addressed either. As I often tease, but also genuinely mean, let's get some errata for the errata's errata. Hot mess indeed.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Hobbes on <09-05-20/1120:16>
Multiple Attacks also explicitly lets you mix and match different weapons, skills, firing modes.
I don't see an issue with a character holding a firearm (such as a pistol or SMG) in one hand and a melee weapon in the other (for example a combat knife).

With a multiple attacks minor action he would then be allowed to attack with both at the same time. For example a wide burst attack with the SMG and at the same time performing a melee attack with the combat knife.


There isn't an issue with different weapons, the issue is the implication that a single Major Action (Attack) plus Minor Action (Multiple Attacks) is allowing you to to make two or more Major Action (Attacks), albeit with a reduced dice pool.  Edge Actions like Shank, Knockout Blow, Anticipate, different Firing Modes have an assortment of restrictions on them and it's up to the GM to sort that out.  And, yes, any given table can sort out something that works, as these threads have shown, it's up for debate as to what is the most correct.  Or least wrong.

My own simple preference would be to do a Wide Burst with an SMG and a melee attack with a combat knife would be that it cost two Major Actions.  Which is an option.  Personally I've rarely seen players split dice pools.  I suspect in 6E the majority of the time anyone is using the Multiple Attacks action it will be in combination with Anticipate or some other attack option.

House Rules discussion

Attacking with two weapons is a +2 AR. 
Mm..... What if you are wielding two different type of weapons?
(what DV and AR value would you use in that case and what if one is set to Full Auto while the other is set to Burst Fire...)

Primary weapon (as decided by the Attacker), and any Firing Mode or Edge Actions, gets +2 AR.  Secondary weapon is, essentially, cosmetic.  Attacking the same, or different, targets with each weapon (or one weapon twice) can be done with two Major Actions.  Both getting a +2 AR.   

I kinda like the idea that if you wield two weapons (or if you have two readied throwing knives or shurikens) then you are suddenly allowed to attack the same target twice (by splitting the pool and spending a multiple attacks minor action).

That the only other option if you wish to attack the same target twice (with a single weapon) is to use a firearm set to full auto (trading 6 AP for a minor action)

Splitting dice pools happens so rarely in game, I don't think eliminating the Multiple Attack Acton is taking a meaningful option away from the players.  There are still AoEs, Firing Modes and then (House ruled) Edge Actions to give players multi-target options.

Like I said above, I suspect a majority of the time players will be using the Multiple Attack Action in combination with some other combat option.  I'd skip the middle man and give the players a well defined pre-bundled option.  YMMV.

Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Xenon on <09-05-20/1129:13>
Splitting dice pools happens so rarely in game, I don't think eliminating the Multiple Attack Acton is taking a meaningful option away from the players.
Which is why I like the reading where Multiple Attacks is basically only used when you dual wield (or when you have up to Agility / 2 readied throwing weapons).



House Rules discussion

Attacking with two weapons is a +2 AR. 
Mm..... What if you are wielding two different type of weapons?
(what DV and AR value would you use in that case and what if one is set to Full Auto while the other is set to Burst Fire...)

Primary weapon (as decided by the Attacker), and any Firing Mode or Edge Actions, gets +2 AR.  Secondary weapon is, essentially, cosmetic.  Attacking the same, or different, targets with each weapon (or one weapon twice) can be done with two Major Actions.  Both getting a +2 AR.   
Or when attacking the same target with both weapons at the same time you resolve it as one attack (no splitting) where you pick the higher DV of the two and the higher AR of the two.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <09-05-20/1454:06>
I strive to run things as written.
It seem as if SR6 assumes that you also use common sense (more so than perhaps other editions).



I think part of the problem is you and other people view their interpretations as common sense.  You seem to think its common sense that you need multiple weapons for the multiple attacks otherwise it would take 2 majors.  I think 2 majors with one weapon represents taking your time to line up two attacks and a multi attack against the same target represents a rushed 2 attacks. It could be represented by a burst as well, that is up to the player. I think that is common sense.

There obviously should be some limits set up on how many shots a person can get off, or more accurately how many shots anticipation can deal with.  Maybe make some special rule with SA grenade launchers or something, maybe SS shouldn't be able to do it without 2 weapons, maybe what weapons anticipation can apply to needs to be narrowed down so its not 2 grenades. But, just multiple attacks go ahead and shoot 10 times with your 20 skill, 2 dice for each attack woo and hoo, you successfully missed a desk jockey standing out in the open 10 times in a row, toss 2 grenades in one action with 10 dice on each throw. You are going to miss a point blank hit at that point, and the real issue is grenades are broken not that you threw 2 of them.

Limiting it to dual wielding is not a balance issue, it isn't just common sense, its just limiting it to limit it.

You are supposed to use common sense only works if everyone thinks the common sense answers are the same thing.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: penllawen on <09-05-20/1508:36>
I think part of the problem is you and other people view their interpretations as common sense. ...
You are supposed to use common sense only works if everyone thinks the common sense answers are the same thing.
And I think the last few pages of this thread alone demonstrate there is no common common sense to be had here. Everyone has reasonable, but mutually incompatible, explanations. Which isn't too bad for a home game where you can just pick one but:

To be blunt the primary reason I strive to run things as written is for consistency, especially for organized play which is just about all of my SR gaming.
...yes, this.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Xenon on <09-06-20/0519:42>
Shinobi Killfist and Penllawen, i don't think anyone in here (well, except perhaps you then) think it actually make sense to have no mechanical difference between a weapon in single shot mode (we are not even talking about semi automatic mode here... single shot weapons include tasers, hold outs, bolt action sport rifles, grenade launchers, dart guns and missile launchers) and a weapon in full auto mode (like a SMG, assault rifle or LMG).

The only reason why people argue that you are allowed to fire as many bullets per attack action with a firearm in single shot mode (not even semi automatic mode) as a weapon in full auto mode is because this is what a strict reading of the rules (or one of them) seem to suggest.

Not because it make sense (because I think even you will agree that it does not make sense from a mechanical point of view, from a realistic point of view and not even from a hollywood realistic point of view that a bolt action sport rifle would actually have the same rate of fire as a SMG set to full auto).



Single shot in this edition is when you fire one single bullet per major attack action.

SR6 p. 109 Firing mode
You fire a single bullet.

SR6 p. 112 Breaking Through
Weapons firing in SS mode can create a single hole per attack.


SA in this edition is when you double-tap two bullets per major attack action.

SR6 p. 109 Firing mode
You fire two rounds rapidly with two trigger pulls.

SR6 p. 112 Breaking Through
SA weapons can create 2 holes per Attack action.


Burst in this edition is when you tap the trigger once and out comes 4 bullets per major attack action.

SR6 p. 109 Firing mode
You’ve got a fancy gun that pumps out multiple rounds with a single trigger pull. You can fire four rounds in an attack.

SR6 p. 112 Breaking Through
Burst Fire creates one hole per Attack but gains the DV boost from a narrow burst.


FA in this edition is when you spray one or multiple targets with several short bursts while spending 10 bullets per major attack action.

SR6 p. 109 Firing mode
This can be used to attack a slew of targets or even a single target with a series of small dice pools, with each hit doing the full damage of the weapon. This mode uses ten rounds...

SR6 p. 112 Breaking Through
Full-auto gunfire can be used to make single attack and create a ... hole with each Attack Action...



If you wish to fire two bullets from your single shot taser you need to spend two major actions - OR wield one taser in each hand, firing both of them at the same time in the same major action (by adding the multiple attacks minor action and splitting the pool).
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: 0B on <09-06-20/1121:11>
I can kind of get where people are coming from on this from a game-balance perspective (What is the point of multiple firing modes if you can shoot single-shot multiple times), but I think the split dice pool already takes care of that.

To me, the 3 seconds to shoot once means that you're getting a sight picture and waiting for the bottom of your breath before shooting. If you aren't using proper form, you can shoot faster than that, even as a single shot, at the cost of accuracy. I think the split dice pool covers this. I don't think I'd be able to shoot more than twice in 3 seconds, at least if I was trying to hit at least the broad side of a barn, but other people are capable of shooting quickly and accurately (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM).

Now, doing full-auto or another mode more than once would strain realism.

Same for melee attacks: Haste makes waste, so you can strike quicker, but you lose out on form. That's also represented by the split dice pool.

I'm curious how you would handle multi-attacks with someone unarmed. I sincerely hope the answer isn't "you can't strike with both your right and left unless you're ambidextrous." You might favor one side or the other, but that's not how combatives works at all. Being ambidextrous doesn't make you a faster martial artist, either.

Basically: From the standpoint of realism, I don't think it makes sense that you need two weapons to make two attacks within 3 seconds. The only argument you can make against it is game balance. I think the split dice pools already cover that, but maybe an AR penalty for using off-hand might be acceptable? I'm unsure.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <09-06-20/1138:55>
Personally... my preferred "fix" is to add a bit of codification to the "gm's discretion" to the Multiple Attack restriction:

"You can't multiattack more targets than your current firing mode would expend in bullets if you instead made a firing mode attack."

So, if your gun is currently in SS firing mode, no multi-attack. Sorry.  Not without dual wielding, at any rate.
If your gun is currently in SA firing mode, a multiple attack is capped out at 2 targets.
BF firing mode: capped out at 4 targets.
FA already does not use multiple attacks.

In my view, that's not even a house rule.  It's just a regimented way of applying the existing rule of "GM discretion caps your multiple attacks".
And for the reasons I outlined upthread (and in the SRM ruling), you simply may not (indeed... CAN not) combine multiple attacks with burst attacks.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <09-06-20/1307:38>
So with 6 BF-guns, I can only attack 4 targets with my possible 6x2=12 attacks?
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Reaver on <09-06-20/1328:09>
So with 6 BF-guns, I can only attack 4 targets with my possible 6x2=12 attacks?

I would be more concerned with how you are holding 6 readied BF guns...

Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Marcus on <09-06-20/1330:42>
So with 6 BF-guns, I can only attack 4 targets with my possible 6x2=12 attacks?

I would be more concerned with how you are holding 6 readied BF guns...

Paul Smecker : So you're telling me it was one guy with six guns, and he was a senior frigging citizen?

Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Reaver on <09-06-20/1337:34>
So with 6 BF-guns, I can only attack 4 targets with my possible 6x2=12 attacks?

I would be more concerned with how you are holding 6 readied BF guns...

Paul Smecker : So you're telling me it was one guy with six guns, and he was a senior frigging citizen?

and even He didn't use 6 guns at one time, but only 2...

He just never reloaded and dropped the empty pistols before drawing 2 new loaded ones...
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <09-06-20/1339:31>
So with 6 BF-guns, I can only attack 4 targets with my possible 6x2=12 attacks?

Well the difference between a SRM rule and a home rule is the home rule has more room for "well, OBVIOUSLY, in that case...."
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Michael Chandra on <09-06-20/1411:25>
There's 2 ways to wield 6 BF-guns, btw, and I'm only pointing out one: SURGE.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: 0B on <09-06-20/1411:40>
I feel like it's even harder to aim at multiple targets using BF or another mode that fires multiple shots at once/in short succession. You would have to move the weapon to point it at your next target in between rounds being fired. With an assault rifle, with a cyclic fire rate of 700 - 900 RPM, that ends up at less than 0.10 seconds between each round fired. Sure, a street sam or adept might be able to do it because of Future Science or Magic, but the average person? It's just not physically possible, especially if you need to turn 90 degrees or more to aim at the next opponent.

I'd be more on board with something that says "you can only multi-attack with SS mode or melee" rather than "you can only multi-attack with a mode that expends more than one bullet per trigger squeeze."

Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Stainless Steel Devil Rat on <09-06-20/1443:22>
I feel like it's even harder to aim at multiple targets using BF or another mode that fires multiple shots at once/in short succession. You would have to move the weapon to point it at your next target in between rounds being fired. With an assault rifle, with a cyclic fire rate of 700 - 900 RPM, that ends up at less than 0.10 seconds between each round fired. Sure, a street sam or adept might be able to do it because of Future Science or Magic, but the average person? It's just not physically possible, especially if you need to turn 90 degrees or more to aim at the next opponent.

I can subscribe to that... but on the other hand SR can also be considered a game of superpowered superheroes that can do things that mortal normies cannot.  So... there's no universal perfect answer to this rules conflict.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: 0B on <09-06-20/1451:23>
I guess my point is that doing single shot against multiple targets within 3 seconds is easier than doing burst fire against multiple targets in the same time period.

I'll accept that someone's good enough to do the BF against multiple targets- but if that's true, then it should be even easier for them to do SS against multiple targets.

If you're looking at this strictly from a manner of game balance, that's a whole other matter entirely, of course.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <09-06-20/1507:59>
Shinobi Killfist and Penllawen, i don't think anyone in here (well, except perhaps you then) think it actually make sense to have no mechanical difference between a weapon in single shot mode (we are not even talking about semi automatic mode here... single shot weapons include tasers, hold outs, bolt action sport rifles, grenade launchers, dart guns and missile launchers) and a weapon in full auto mode (like a SMG, assault rifle or LMG).


I'll quote myself. "There obviously should be some limits set up on how many shots a person can get off, or more accurately how many shots anticipation can deal with.  Maybe make some special rule with SA grenade launchers or something, maybe SS shouldn't be able to do it without 2 weapons, maybe what weapons anticipation can apply to needs to be narrowed down so its not 2 grenades."

I've already acknowledged some weapons multiple attacks wouldn't make sense with. And the rules should be changed to reflect that.

But a standard pistol SA shooting a person with multi-attack vs burst is something the player should be determining.  either 2 rapid fire shots as one attack(SA mode like a small burst), or two rushed targeted attacks.(multi-attack) You shouldn't need 2 weapons for that.

Because yes, many people are rolling attack modes other than SS into their idea that you should need 2 weapons to multi-attack.
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Xenon on <09-06-20/1609:08>
I think the idea behind Burst Fire in this edition is that you just pull the trigger once and out comes 4 bullets. Normally in the form of a narrow burst that hit the target you are aiming at, but you also have the option to split the pool and go for for a slightly wider burst that can hit up to a maximum of two targets (but since you are hitting them with the same burst it realistically mean that both targets need to stand pretty close and possible also that there are no other targets between them). I am pretty sure the idea behind a burst fire attack is not that you pull the trigger once and are still able to pint-point up to 4 individual targets 360 degree around you with one bullet each (as that would be physically impossible and highly unrealistic, even with Hollywood Realistic standards on par with John Wick). If you wish to hit two totally separated targets with one firearm in BF mode then you would narrow burst the first target. Then, with your second major action, narrow burst the second target.

(there does not seem to be a "complex action" option where you pull the trigger twice... that let you aim at one target within short medium range, pull the trigger once to hit it with a short narrow burst of 3 bullets, and then aim at a second target within short or medium range and then pull the trigger a second time to hit the second target with another short narrow burst of 3 bullets - as we had in previous edition).



I think the idea behind Semi Automatic in this edition is that you just double tap the same target (but it stand to reason that you are also allowed to just tap the trigger once to fire a single bullet similar to a single shot weapon). If you wish to hit a second target then you spend your second major action before you double tap (or single tap) that target as well.

(there does not seem to be a "complex action" option where you pull the trigger 3 times... that let you aim at one target within short or medium range, pull the trigger once, then aim at a second target within short or medium range, pull the trigger a second time and then aim at a third target also within short or medium range and then pull the trigger a third time - as we had in previous edition).
Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Hobbes on <09-06-20/1642:28>
There's 2 ways to wield 6 BF-guns, btw, and I'm only pointing out one: SURGE.

Rigger could have all kinds of guns in a vehicle/Drone/Medusa Extentions.

Nartaki with Monkey Feet Cyber limbs.  Or Just Cyberguns in Cyberlegs.

Mage with Prehensile Tail Weapon and Magic Fingers.

Implanted Cybergun in CyberTorso and/or CyberSkull.

Burn out Nartaki Mage with Magic Fingers, Prehensile Tail, Cybergun in each Cyberleg, plus Cyber Torso, plus Cyberskull and four in the Arms.

Burn out Nartaki Mage with Magic Fingers, Prehensile Tail, Cybergun in each Cyberleg, plus Cyber Torso, plus Cyberskull and four in the Arms and Medusa Extensions. 

(Can't recall 5th Edition has a weaponized tail option...)

I'll stop.  But holding lots of guns, no problem.  Meaningful dice pools are usually the issue.


Title: Re: Anticipation... again :-)
Post by: Shinobi Killfist on <09-07-20/0004:46>
There's 2 ways to wield 6 BF-guns, btw, and I'm only pointing out one: SURGE.

Rigger could have all kinds of guns in a vehicle/Drone/Medusa Extentions.

Nartaki with Monkey Feet Cyber limbs.  Or Just Cyberguns in Cyberlegs.

Mage with Prehensile Tail Weapon and Magic Fingers.

Implanted Cybergun in CyberTorso and/or CyberSkull.

Burn out Nartaki Mage with Magic Fingers, Prehensile Tail, Cybergun in each Cyberleg, plus Cyber Torso, plus Cyberskull and four in the Arms.

Burn out Nartaki Mage with Magic Fingers, Prehensile Tail, Cybergun in each Cyberleg, plus Cyber Torso, plus Cyberskull and four in the Arms and Medusa Extensions. 

(Can't recall 5th Edition has a weaponized tail option...)

I'll stop.  But holding lots of guns, no problem.  Meaningful dice pools are usually the issue.

SHHH don't mention magic fingers.  My 5e mage invisible drone used that for all his attacks. Clairvoyance/magic fingers & a good firearms skill= pew pew around corners. Have 4 magic fingers spells going and go to down.  you constantly miss but it does draw attention when 4 assault rifles are firing away.

I'm drunk and this took like 8 attempts to type to this level.