[Thrass]

You can learn german and ask Pegasus about an official rules statement, they do give them out and afaik what Pegasus says is as official as you get.

[bannockburn]

afaik what Pegasus says is as official as you get.

Which means: Not at all.
The only thing that's official are errata, and we don't get those (at this point in the production pipeline, understandably).

What Pegasus' SR team says is just as much interpretation in terms of conflicting RAW as it is if a freelancer says it, if I say it, or just about everyone else in this or any other forum.
The fact of the matter is that most people, including the writers don't even go into that much thought about loopholes. Sure, Bloodzillas eventually get mentioned and fixed, but something as inconsequential as "How do I handle an obscure fringe case with guns that basically never occurs" won't ever be addressed, because common sense dictates: "Do it as your GM wills, after discussing it. If your interpretation isn't shared by the majority of your group, your interpretation is wrong for your group."

A question such as this won't make it into the errata, and not even an FAQ, simply because the question isn't asked frequently.

The funny thing is, this kind of service (an official rules crack team) isn't even needed. Most people I know don't even read the errata or are aware of different printings of the rulebooks.
Games Workshop offers (or offered, I don't know the current state of affairs) this kind of thing. You can even call a hotline and some dude will answer your question right then and there. The funny part: Try it. Then call again, see if you can get another dude on the line.
We tried it, we got three different answers from three different guys. All of the answers were official.

[Jyster]

So why can't we get an official ruling in the shadowrun catalyst rules forum?

Because we don't need one. And this goes for just about all rules arguments. You have the language - the RAW, if you will. Take it as it is literally written (a SS action creates no recoil - which would mean ever), and if there is conflicting language (which there is not here) choose what is best for your table (in this case the alternate is - consider it as a second shot on the same weapon for some unknown and incomprehensible reason, and is only good for a table that has a GM with a thing against DW). It's not hard. There's no a mystery. You may think for yourself.

Wow, self important much, or are you trying to be a tool.

 I came into the official rules section of the company that is making the game to get a rules clarification, I don't see why another poster being rude and self important about a rules question.that actually belongs in this forum.

[Michael Chandra]

Look, we tried to help you. People even reached consensus, based directly on what's in RAW. That's all we can give you. I am unaware of any way for you to get more than this. If you are unsatisfied with that and only want official statements, then I ask of you to make sure to include that next time you have a question, since then I don't feel like I'm wasting my time digging through the rules trying to help you.

[Kiirnodel]

So why can't we get an official ruling in the shadowrun catalyst rules forum?

Because we don't need one. And this goes for just about all rules arguments. You have the language - the RAW, if you will. Take it as it is literally written (a SS action creates no recoil - which would mean ever), and if there is conflicting language (which there is not here) choose what is best for your table (in this case the alternate is - consider it as a second shot on the same weapon for some unknown and incomprehensible reason, and is only good for a table that has a GM with a thing against DW). It's not hard. There's no a mystery. You may think for yourself.

Wow, self important much, or are you trying to be a tool.

 I came into the official rules section of the company that is making the game to get a rules clarification, I don't see why another poster being rude and self important about a rules question.that actually belongs in this forum.

You need to check yourself there Jyster. It looks like you're new, but that isn't an excuse for being offensive when someone is just trying to answer your question.

As a note, this forum may be hosted through the Shadowrun 4 website, but that doesn't mean that it is an "official rules section". This is a forum, and as a few others have already mentioned, the Catalyst staff does not frequently answer these threads. We have tried to answer your question in many ways, please be nice.

As a note: it looks like the majority answer is No, firing two single shot guns (one in each hand) during the same simple action does not suffer from any recoil.
People have noted that you need to worry about the drawbacks from firing two weapons at once (splitting your dice pool, no smartgun or laser sight bonus), but there is no recoil.

[viaRailGun]

how do you make a link to a previous post? one in particular: "ambidexterous?" great points on the +'s/-'s of dual-wielding.

[Michael Chandra]

You see the Re: <Topic Title> above every post? Click that for the url to link to that exact post. Then just paste that url somewhere.

[All4BigGuns]

More specifically, right-click it and choose "Copy Link Location", then paste it.

[viaRailGun]

http://forums.shadowrun4.com/index.php?topic=10493.msg189678#msg189678

 

[RHat]

So why can't we get an official ruling in the shadowrun catalyst rules forum?

Because we don't need one. And this goes for just about all rules arguments. You have the language - the RAW, if you will. Take it as it is literally written (a SS action creates no recoil - which would mean ever), and if there is conflicting language (which there is not here) choose what is best for your table (in this case the alternate is - consider it as a second shot on the same weapon for some unknown and incomprehensible reason, and is only good for a table that has a GM with a thing against DW). It's not hard. There's no a mystery. You may think for yourself.

Wow, self important much, or are you trying to be a tool.

 I came into the official rules section of the company that is making the game to get a rules clarification, I don't see why another poster being rude and self important about a rules question.that actually belongs in this forum.

You do realize it's kind of rude to respond to a bunch of people who tried to help you by effectively saying that their help is no good to you? 

[viaRailGun]

jesus turned his cheek.

[Michael Chandra]

Yeah, and we all know what cheek that actually was.

[emsquared]

So why can't we get an official ruling in the shadowrun catalyst rules forum?

Because we don't need one. And this goes for just about all rules arguments. You have the language - the RAW, if you will. Take it as it is literally written (a SS action creates no recoil - which would mean ever), and if there is conflicting language (which there is not here) choose what is best for your table (in this case the alternate is - consider it as a second shot on the same weapon for some unknown and incomprehensible reason, and is only good for a table that has a GM with a thing against DW). It's not hard. There's no a mystery. You may think for yourself.

Wow, self important much, or are you trying to be a tool.

 I came into the official rules section of the company that is making the game to get a rules clarification, I don't see why another poster being rude and self important about a rules question.that actually belongs in this forum.

People gave you every bit of information (and more) required to answer your question, in the spirit of helping you, or enough for you to make an informed decision if you didn't trust that input (which you seemed to not), you continued to whine and demand even though we'd already held your hand the whole way. There's only so much we can do for you - and there's absolutely nothing the debs owe you. Not a whole lot of ways to say that.

You are the one out of line.