And what is the time difference on those two things? I'd be willing to bet that it is fairly significant when looking at 12 shots fired vs two 6 shot bursts.

Edit: Also, given the abstraction, who's to say that the full auto doesn't involve letting up on the trigger for a split second so that the person can recenter their aim a bit? You know, other than the rules, exactly the same thing that says it doesn't happen when using 2 simple actions.

About this much or maybe this much.

As for your edit:

There's nothing really abstract about that particular rule, other than the exact amount of time of each action. But bursts are defined as holding down the trigger for the duration of the shot. Which, in turn, means they let go of the trigger inbetween bursts, too.

Sweet. So, did you notice that it took him about as long (or longer) to recenter himself after 3 shots as it did to fire those three shots? Basically that he spent a standard action firing the 3 shots, and then another standard action to recenter himself?

And as for my edit. Yes, that is exactly my point. The rules point out that there is no pause between shots in full auto mode, and thus all the recoil is added up. The rules also state the the recoil from multiple single action shots is cumulative. In other words saying that the recoil from two single action shots does not add is exactly the same as saying that full auto should have a break in it that allows RC to work twice, because both are pointed out in the rules as being wrong.

After his first couple of shots in this video, he goes much more rapidly. And continues to do so further on. By the end of the video he's doing them in pairs of two. If you're really trying to argue that those aren't multiple Simple Actions in the same phase, well, I don't know what to say at that point. To each their own.

Sure, after a while he speeds up some, but who's to say how accurate he is at that point? And how often does a runner get a chance to stand perfectly still in a perfectly nice braced position, while firing at a fixed target? Also keep in mind you're comparing 4 bullets shot in a single IP, to 12 bullets fired in a single IP. Sure, he could fire 4 bullets in a single IP, because 4 bullets is only slightly worse than the 3 bullets that he was firing earlier and having to spend time re-centering himself after.

I agree Karoline that it is completely nonsensical that you can aim with one weapon, fire off a long burst, aim with another weapon, and fire a long burst. But it is very clearly RAW.

Me, personally, I'd houserule that using 2 weapons in the same Pass means you have to split dice

Now you're describing situational modifiers to explain the base rule? I'm also arguing about the general principle behind the rule. Whether it's two SA shots, two BF shots, or any other two Simple Actions, there's a pause in between them by virtue of them being two separate and distinct actions. If they were a serious of simultaneous/combined actions, it would be a Complex Action along the same vein as Melee Combat.

They are two separate and distinct actions only by virtue of the fact that we define them that way. Would you rather that the designers went through and created a complex action for every possible combination of two simple actions? Because the results would be absolutely identical, except that it would take about 50 extra pages to list and explain every possible combination, and then the list would have to be errated every time a new action of any kind was created. So yes, doing two simple actions is one continuous combination of actions if done in the same IP. In other words all two simple actions are, is the creation of a custom complex action to describe your turn. Melee combat is a complex action because there is no 'half a melee attack', firing a weapon as a long burst is a simple action because it is 'half a full auto', and thus doing it twice is a full auto.

Think of it like money. It doesn't matter if you have a single dollar bill, or four quarters, you still have $1. The fact that your money is broken up into quarters doesn't somehow increase their value. It doesn't matter if you buy two things for $.50 by spending 2 quarters and then spending another 2 quarters, or just handing over the bill. In the end, you're still down $1.

How do we always end up in some weird 'philosophy of reality' argument?
The rules are pretty clear, and make sense from a balance standpoint (because it is a game):

All recoil in a single Phase is cumulative;
you get 2 Simple Actions to do what you want;
DP is split only when firing two weapons *at once*;
you can fire (probably) 1 Long Burst from each gun in a single Phase (if you think the rules say 'no' to this one, just disallow it).

Anything else is house-rules, which are fine if you think your game would be better with 'fixes'. Maybe for your game, the most you can do with use one SMG to fire a Short Burst and the other to fire a Long Burst (as we know, totaling one Full Burst); this would *still* be a benefit in terms of recoil, and gives you the option of two attacks.

But it's impossible to argue that recoil isn't cumulative, or that you're not 'allowed' to use your Simple Actions as you choose, etc.

I don't like to blindly accept the rules as written. I like to understand the underlying logic so I can better judge if I want to house rule (or in this case, continue house ruling) them or change my point of view. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I just don't completely agree with everything being said, nor do I see a balance issue considering that we've been playing this way for as long as I can remember without a single issue arising. And I assure you, hardly anyone I game with uses two weapons at once despite the apparent super-awesomeness of the tactic.

(I take that back, I've personally created a character with two Ruger Super Warhawks who used them this way. But that has nothing at all to do with burst-fire weapons so much as a flavor decision.)

At this point I'm okay with bowing out, too. As I said, I only decided to continue going on to annoy Smokeskin for telling me to shut the fuck up.

Of course not, because the way you rule it the two weapons aren't super awesome. It is when you go by the RAW that two weapons are really awesome.

So wouldn't it stand to reason that my take is the more balanced version then?

It does make any sense for the fully compensated recoil to add to the next burst. I think it was a bad description. It does sit well in reality or in game. It means the a long and a short burst is as bad as using full auto. Which is not the case. it should be uncompensated recoil carries over to the next shot.

This..

It isn't even a house rule for me, if you have a weapon in each hand then you are splitting your dice pool. This is an interpretation of RAW that I believe is correct. It makes absolutely no sense that you can fire one simple action and the the other. It also is nonsensical when concerning that the goal of the tactic is to attack twice with one simple action. You are in a special condition (A gun in each hand) and so you play by that rule. If you want to shoot one gun, then use one gun in one hand and forget the John Woo shit... If not, you split your dice pool, period...

It has been consistent across editions that recoil is cumulative. If you fire two burst from one gun then the total recoil will be -5. How does it make sense that recoil would not cumulate? In RL, if you shoot a gun, the recoil is there as long as you pull that trigger without a pause to re-establish your aim.

Recoil has ALWAYS been cumulative across a combat phase.

Edit: Also because I just don't think people are comprehending this. If you have two guns, you can describe the attack any way you want. Even if you fire them one after the other, you are still trying to put two attacks on one target with one simple action. Sorry, no gaming the system by firing one simple and then another simple. If you want to do that without splitting your dice pool, drop one of the guns..

If one was to not apply recoil to the 2nd gun, one could theoretically also do the following for the same effect:

1. Quickdraw and shoot

2. use free action to drop the gun

3. Quickdraw your OTHER gun and shoot

Makes about as much sense as the other rule, is slightly less consistent but doesn't require ambidextrous (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

No. That is not what we are saying. We say you fire one of the guns with one simple action. Period, done, one gun is fired. Then you use a separate simple action (as in the second one you get in any given IP) to fire the other weapon. You are putting two attacks on one (or two) targets with two simple actions. Thus you don't have to split the DP.

I think the better solution to the double long burst is to simple infer that the ruling is in place because it takes 2/3rd of an IP to do a long burst, and so you can never do two long bursts in a single IP (Unless you do it with the two weapons simultaneously). Basically if you do a long burst with one weapon, wait till it ends, and then start another long burst, you'll only get half of it off (a short burst) before your IP runs out.

But that is not what the rule says. You are also putting two attack on one target with TWO simple actions. That is the difference here. I am saying that you ALWAYS split your dice pool if you have a gun in each hand. You cannot get past this limitation unless you drop one of the guns. You cannot bypass this penalty by firing one gun with one single action and the other with another simple.

When you have a gun in each hand, you are SPLITTING your focus. It literally means that one dice pool is your left hand and one dice pool is your right hand. That is the whole reason you split dice!!! The way your describing it is just trying to bypass a rule...

The reason to use two guns is to potentially get FOUR attacks on one target. Two attacks with one simple action and another two attacks with your other action.

Groking this yet? Why limit yourself to two attacks with two guns when the rules explicitly give you the option to put FOUR attacks on a target with two guns?

If you are using a gun in each hand, you split your dice pool, period.

I know older editions don't exactly apply but in Shadowrun 3rd, you had a +2 modifier placed on EACH gun. There is no way to game it, no other explanation. You couldn't get past the fact that using a gun in each hand automatically placed a modifier.

Since the devs have always kept the spirit of the rules across every edition, I would assume that this has not changed and there is NO way to avoid splitting your dice pool, period...

Your assumption is incorrect. The dice pool splitting mechanic is used in multiple places and in each case, it specifically applies to doing multiple things with a single Simple or Complex action. The other cases, by the way, are making multiple melee attacks with a single Complex Action and casting multiple spells with a Complex Action.

When the two attacks are made using two separate Simple Actions, there is no reason to split the dice pools. The off-hand takes the -2 Off-Hand attack penalty (unless you spent the points for ambidexterity), but that's all.

I disagree. You even make the point that you split your dice pool to split your focus. It makes no sense that you can fire one gun in one hand and one gun in the other without penalty. If you wanted to do that, use a single weapon. This application of the rule is just gaming the system by trying to get past the inherent penalty of having a gun in each hand. Sorry, that doesn't work. It is an attempt to get more dice than the rules say to give you. You are supposed to be penalized for using two guns but with the goal of putting more lead in a target for less cost of actions...

There is a penalty to using a gun in each hand, a penalty that is overcome by firing the gun properly and with both hands. As I have said, if you have a gun in each hand, you split the dice pool and you can't use smartlinks or the such.

Eh, I am done discussing it. I know how I do it in my games and I have seen no evidence that I should change my thinking. How can you fire a with a gun in each hand and not have any sort of penalty for improper aim, improper balance and improper grip. Instead of giving out random modifiers (Which I am empowered to do as a GM), I just keep it simple.

If you are two-fisting guns, you split your dice pool. Works well for me, YMMV.

But just because you can fire both guns at the same time, and you can get roughly the same affect firing one gun and then the other as having a single gun, doesn't mean that you must use these options.

Okay, we'll go with splitting DP. I'll split all of my DP to my right hand, and then fire with a simple action with my right hand. Then on the second simple action, I'll switch all my DP over to my left hand and then fire my left handed weapon. During the first simple you are completely ignoring your left hand, and during your second simple action you are completely ignoring your right hand. There is no reason that holding two guns suddenly means that you only get your DP once over an IP. Switching which hand you are focusing on is no more difficult than switching from one target to another with a single weapon over the course of an IP.

The rules even specifically state that you split your DP when you fire both weapons at the same time, ie, with the same action you are not doing this. Thus if you are not firing them at the same time (Because you are using separate simple actions to fire them), you do not have to split your DP. The fact that you can get the same affect with a single gun does not mean that you cannot do this. The fact that you can fire them at the same time with the same simple action does not mean that you must.


Like I said, alternate means doesn't mean you must use them. If you wanted to attack someone, use a melee weapon. Obviously because melee weapons exist, you can't use ranged weapons to attack someone, as that would provide options and verity.

I totally agree that by RAW, the dice pools should not be split - but I wouldn't say there's "no reason" to split them. The idea that even an ambidextrous person could alternate shots with two weapons at the same accuracy and rate as he could with one is really far out - and that he'd even in most cases be less affected by recoil just makes it really worse.

It looks like nothing but a loophole to me, an oversight in the rules that you can abuse. Totally RAW, but by no means RAI.

The recoil thing is an entirely separate issue. Like I said before though, it really isn't any harder to switch from one hand to the other than it is to switch from one target to another with a single weapon. I do this all the time with my computers. I'll be working on both at once, and switching my focus from one to the other takes no longer than it would take me to switch my focus on which application I'm using on a single computer.

I've never tried firing guns two handed, but I'd imagine I'd be equally apt at switching my focus from one weapon to the other.

Edit: Also, I think you can concede that it would be at least somewhat easier to switch from one weapon to another than it would be to try and focus on both weapons at once. Once again, I do this with my computers from time to time, and it is far harder than switching back and forth.

in passed editions it was uncompensated recoil that built up. what is the point of having recoil comp if it does do anything.

so if you have a comlink in your other hand you have to split your dice pools? Having two weapons in your hands, but you only fire one at a time. No dice pool split.