[Michael Chandra]

Under RAW you can't combine Anticipation with FA, and I am fine with that restriction.

[0B]

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.

[Xenon]

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.

[Xenon]

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.

[Michael Chandra]

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.

[0B]

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.

[penllawen]

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.)

[Shinobi Killfist]

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.

[Xenon]

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.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

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.

[Lormyr]

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.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

...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.

[Lormyr]

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.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

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!

[Lormyr]

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.