NEWS

Anticipation... again :-)

  • 109 Replies
  • 2222 Views

0B

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 149
  • Be seeing you
« Reply #15 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.
« Last Edit: <08-07-20/1145:42> by 0B »

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #16 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.

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 5856
« Reply #17 on: <08-07-20/1336:58> »
Many English words can have more than one meaning. Which doesn't help.

0B

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 149
  • Be seeing you
« Reply #18 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?

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 5856
« Reply #19 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 =)

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #20 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.

0B

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 149
  • Be seeing you
« Reply #21 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.

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 3916
« Reply #22 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.
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

0B

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 149
  • Be seeing you
« Reply #23 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."

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 5856
« Reply #24 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.

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 5856
« Reply #25 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.
« Last Edit: <08-07-20/2223:29> by Xenon »

0B

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 149
  • Be seeing you
« Reply #26 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.

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2585
« Reply #27 on: <08-08-20/1125:55> »
So, Mission FAQ 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.

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2585
« Reply #28 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.

Lormyr

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
« Reply #29 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.
"TL:DR 6e's reduction of meaningful choices is akin to forcing everyone to wear training wheels. Now it's just becomes a bunch of toddlers riding around on tricycles they can't fall off of." - Adzling