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.
