[Michael Chandra]

It definitely needs clarification, but I think the intent is that you simply do not fire for a single pass. Otherwise, resetting recoil would be way too easy.

[trunglefever]

It definitely needs clarification, but I think the intent is that you simply do not fire for a single pass. Otherwise, resetting recoil would be way too easy.

That's what I would agree upon. RAI, taking a single pass to not shoot your gun doesn't seem like a make or break occasion. I'm glad the recoil is cumulative to the player, it prevents quickdraw players to ready/shoot weapons on the second pass. I understand action economy is very important, but c'mon, you can't think of doing something else for one whole pass?

[Crunch]

I like to answer questions, but my responses are not official errata, nor are they necessarily the opinion of Catalyst Game Labs or any of its employees; they might even be wrong.

The problem is that the grammar isn't that unclear. "other than shooting" clearly modifes "an action." For Aaron's reading to be correct we're reading it as "shooting for an entire action phase" as the opperative clause which would mean, because as Aaron says we know the rules of Shadowrun, that recoil only ever carries over if a complex action is taken to fire. Since only one simple action can be used to fire no number of single actions could constitute "shooting for an entire action phase" Aaron's reading could be replaced by a rule reading "Recoil never carries over unless a complex action is taken to fire."

Wheras if we read "other than shooting" as a modifier the rule makes perfect gramatical sense. I think the writer's intent is relatively clear.

[ZeConster]

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?s=1c5851c457fcc796bfdf515ca3b77142&showtopic=38980&st=200&p=1236986&#entry1236986

Okay, so what you were trying to say was "here's one of a few posts by Aaron on Dumpshock explaining that while the rules on the matter are harder to read than the text on a 200-year-old gravestone that's underwater, and despite what the example implies, what we wanted to write is that recoil resets once you spend a Simple or Complex Action on something that is not firing a gun".

[Crunch]

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?s=1c5851c457fcc796bfdf515ca3b77142&showtopic=38980&st=200&p=1236986&#entry1236986

Okay, so what you were trying to say was "here's one of a few posts by Aaron on Dumpshock explaining that while the rules on the matter are harder to read than the text on a 200-year-old gravestone that's underwater, and despite what the example implies, what we wanted to write is that recoil resets once you spend a Simple or Complex Action on something that is not firing a gun".

Except that that can't be the reading since, regardless of the order of actions a simple action cannot be "shooting for an entire action phase" under Aaron's reasoning no simple action can ever generate cumulative recoil.

[Michael Chandra]

Fun part: Who wants to bet the example-writer misread the thing or worse, that JM Hardy misread what Aaron meant, liked the idea and labelled it as a good idea, resulting in it now being RAI?

[Crunch]

I suspect, and no offense meant to Aaron, that this is another place where Aaron is going with his interpretation and that that may have nothing to do with RAI or RAW.

If we go by a strict linguistic reading his interpretation CANNOT be correct as a simple action cannot ever be "shooting for an entire Action Phase."

it must either be "You must take actions other than shooting for an entire Action Phase to reset recoil" OR "Only complex actions cause recoil to accumulate." Aaron's reading would require the entire rule to be erratad as his reading is not internally consistent.

[trunglefever]

Fun part: Who wants to bet the example-writer misread the thing or worse, that JM Hardy misread what Aaron meant, liked the idea and labelled it as a good idea, resulting in it now being RAI?

It's certainly not out of the realm of possibility. I'm sure once the errata comes out, it'll be a very large one. I think the predominant problem has to do with the word usage.

[ZeConster]

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?s=1c5851c457fcc796bfdf515ca3b77142&showtopic=38980&st=200&p=1236986&#entry1236986

Okay, so what you were trying to say was "here's one of a few posts by Aaron on Dumpshock explaining that while the rules on the matter are harder to read than the text on a 200-year-old gravestone that's underwater, and despite what the example implies, what we wanted to write is that recoil resets once you spend a Simple or Complex Action on something that is not firing a gun".

Except that that can't be the reading since, regardless of the order of actions a simple action cannot be "shooting for an entire action phase" under Aaron's reasoning no simple action can ever generate cumulative recoil.

On page 10 of the topic he states that if your second Simple Action in one Action Phase is spent firing a firearm, and your first Simple Action in the next Action Phase is spent firing a firearm, your recoil doesn't reset until your second Simple Action in the second Action Phase.

[trunglefever]

I suspect, and no offense meant to Aaron, that this is another place where Aaron is going with his interpretation and that that may have nothing to do with RAI or RAW.

If we go by a strict linguistic reading his interpretation CANNOT be correct as a simple action cannot ever be "shooting for an entire Action Phase."

it must either be "You must take actions other than shooting for an entire Action Phase to reset recoil" OR "Only complex actions cause recoil to accumulate." Aaron's reading would require the entire rule to be erratad as his reading is not internally consistent.

In this case, I would take it as the former. I've shot rifles and handguns before and anytime you fire more than one bullet, you will need a bit of time to reset yourself and be more accurate.

[trunglefever]

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?s=1c5851c457fcc796bfdf515ca3b77142&showtopic=38980&st=200&p=1236986&#entry1236986

Okay, so what you were trying to say was "here's one of a few posts by Aaron on Dumpshock explaining that while the rules on the matter are harder to read than the text on a 200-year-old gravestone that's underwater, and despite what the example implies, what we wanted to write is that recoil resets once you spend a Simple or Complex Action on something that is not firing a gun".

Except that that can't be the reading since, regardless of the order of actions a simple action cannot be "shooting for an entire action phase" under Aaron's reasoning no simple action can ever generate cumulative recoil.

On page 10 of the topic he states that if your second Simple Action in one Action Phase is spent firing a firearm, and your first Simple Action in the next Action Phase is spent firing a firearm, your recoil doesn't reset until your second Simple Action in the second Action Phase.

Ugh...that sounds like a nightmare to keep track of.

[Michael Chandra]

Nvm, completely misunderstood. Still sounds like a nightmare to keep track of.

[Crunch]

On page 10 of the topic he states that if your second Simple Action in one Action Phase is spent firing a firearm, and your first Simple Action in the next Action Phase is spent firing a firearm, your recoil doesn't reset until your second Simple Action in the second Action Phase.

I read the whole conversation after it was pointed out. The problem is that, if we are basing the argument on the language which Aaron claims to be doing, then "for an entire action phase" has to modify either "shooting" or "an action."

Aaron argues that "for an entire action phase" modifies shooting. If that's the case then a Simple Action can never cause recoil to accumulate, because - as Aaron tells us- we know the rules of Shadowrun and a Simple Action can never be "shooting for an entire action phase."

There are only two internally consistent readings.

One is that only "shooting for an entire action phase" causes recoil to accumulate.

The other is that only taking non shooting actions for an entire action phase casues cumulative recoil to reset.

Aaron's reading, where taking a single non shooting action resets recoil, is not internally consistent. If that is the correct RAI then the rule will have to be completely rewritten. 

[Xenon]

I've shot rifles and handguns before and anytime you fire more than one bullet, you will need a bit of time to reset yourself and be more accurate.

Non-wired persons (like yourself) get one action phase every 3 seconds.
Do you find that shooting 1 bullet every 2-3 second cause progressive recoil (little more than 1 bullet per three seconds)?
(my answer to this is no - not even for semi-automatic rifles).

Do you find that shooting 3 bullets every 2-3 seconds cause progressive recoil (little more than 1 bullet per second)?
(my answer to this is yes - at least for semi-automatic rifles).

From a real life perspective it make a lot of sense that recoil is reset if you don't spend the entire action phase shooting bullets (i can't being to grasp why would you still feel the effects of recoil after you spend 1-2 second to slot your rifle with a new magazine)

[ZeConster]

I've shot rifles and handguns before and anytime you fire more than one bullet, you will need a bit of time to reset yourself and be more accurate.

Non-wired persons (like yourself) get one action phase every 3 seconds.

Actually, even average people have a 1/3 chance of getting 2 Action Phases under 5E, and for people that are more agile and/or intuitive it can even be 100%.