Actually you can fire 2 long 6round bursts...

See the HVAR modification which changes your fire rate for a full burst from 10 rounds to 12. And also allows the weapon to fire 2 long bursts in a combat phase.



And there we have it... Funk HASN"T read the FAQ nor the rules.
RECOIL PENALTIES ARE CUMULATIVE. It used to be -2 for the first burst... then -3 for the second... and people misread that like mad... now it's -2 for the first short burst and -5 for the second. And the forumula the devs have stated they used is number of bullets fired that combat phase, minus 1 is the amount of recoil comp needed.


And in either case (assuming it's valid). It's -5 for the first long burst... then -6 for the second. (the use of the plural 'weapons' used in an action phase).


Current SR FAQ...
"Are Recoil modifiers cumulative across an entire Combat Turn, or just an Action Phase? Does Recoil Compensation apply to each attack/burst, or does it only apply once in an Action Phase? Can you give a better example of how recoil works?

Recoil modifiers are cumulative, but they only apply for that Action Phase. They do not carry over to additional Action Phases in a Combat Turn. Recoil Compensation counteracts Recoil modifiers as they accumulate during an Action Phase; the Recoil modifiers don't go away, but for every point of Recoil Compensation 1 point of Recoil modifiers do not apply.

Snowblood is firing a submachine gun in burst fire mode (3 bullets per burst), with 3 points of recoil compensation. With her first Simple Action, she fires one short burst (-2 recoil modifier), but she has 3 points of recoil compensation, so the recoil modifier does not apply to her first roll.

On her second Simple Action, Snowblood fires a second short burst (-3 recoil modifier), which is cumulative with the recoil modifier from her first burst in the Action Phase, for a total recoil modifier of -5. With 3 points of recoil compensation, Snowblood suffers a -2 dice pool modifier due to recoil on her second roll. "

Wait, you're trying to present the FAQ -- a collection of random house rules that are rarely, if ever, backed up by the actual rules -- as the rules?

'k. That explains why you're so terribly, terribly wrong. No need to continue trying to "explain" then. Feel free to come back to it when you find something in the actual rules, or at least the errata that says as much.

Ah, no, see, you do carry over the recoil penalties if you only have a single gun. Okay, now we see the real problem.............

Oh, wow. Huh, you know, I think you're right. Yeah, here is the problem, the people worrying about the RC doubling up were under the impression (myself included) that the recoil penalties stacked, for instance if you fired 6 bullets and then 6 more bullets, you'd be looking at a -11 recoil penalty. But reading over the recoil rules again, I think you're right that it would be a -5 on the first shot (compensated by recoil) and then a -6 on the second shot (compensated by recoil again).


So yeah, for some reason I (and likely the others as well) had always thought that you added up the -5 and the -6, but the way it is stated, it certainly looks like they are handled entirely separately. That is certainly interesting. So yes, if they are handled separately, there really isn't much reason to duel wield SMGs as is being suggested. If however they are added and the recoil is only compensated for once, then duel wielding the SMGs is a huge boost.

Edit: And then I found a contradiction:


So that says they are added, so it would be -2 and then another -3 for a total of -5 which would only be compensated by RC once, making the way the FAQ describes it correct. Edit2: which means we're back to the duel wielded SMGs doubling up RC.

No, that's crazy. Recoil penalties are cumulative.

Run away, run away! It's a TROLL!!!

Not that I have a horse in this race but it has been pretty much consistent throughout the editions of Shadowrun that recoil is cumulative. I thought it was always like this.

I have always been of the understanding that the first burst would be -2 and the second burst would be -3 for a total of -5 recoil to compensate for per combat phase...

I think where the real confusion comes from is the thought that you don't split the dice pool if you shoot them one after the other. As I have always seen it, a two gun attack is any attack with two guns, no matter if you shoot them at the same time or one after the other. To me, this represents the fact that you are splitting your focus between two different weapons. The pro is that you can attack twice with one simple action. The con is reduced efficiency in actually hitting something. Being Ambidextrous negates the -2 off-hand penalty.

It is also true that only uncompensated recoil carries over to another weapon. In the examples in this thread, it seems to me that the all recoil is compensated for so no prob there.. It is also true that you get no benefit from laser sights, smartlinks and other modifiers. Another con...

So, if Salis Moonshade wants to shoot these two SMG's, she would have to first split her dice pool (For her, this would be half of her Automatics skill which is 2) and her Agility (6) for a total of 8 dice to throw. She cannot use her smartlink or a laser sight. Recoil is taken care of since both guns have 5 points of RC and so compensate for the bursts. It isn't the recoil your worrying about, it is the split dice pool and no smartgun!

You can describe the attack anyway but the base result is the same, two attacks at reduced dice in the attempt to do damage twice with one simple action... If you shoot at multiple targets then see multiple target modifier.

Also, if you attack with two guns twice this way, you add the recoil. The second round of fire would come with 10 points of recoil to compensate for both guns to handle. Unfortunately, it does not say that RC adds up like recoil does so the second attack would be suffering from -5 recoil. This would leave Salis a dice pool of 3 for each attack... Not so accurate.

As I look over that, it really seems complicated but it makes sense to me!!!

You split the pool if it's one action, you don't if they're separate actions.

See, this is where I disagree. It doesn't matter if you shoot them one after the other or at the same time. The purpose of the rules is to simulate the fact that you are focusing on two weapons and thus two hands. You are not bracing the gun correctly for recoil, you are probably not holding it very balanced and you are not aiming. This has been pretty consistent across editions, well except for the splitting dice pool thing. It just used to be a simple modifier across the board (+ 2 to both weapons if I remember correctly)

The point is: As long as you have a weapon in each hand and use both to attack, you will split your dice pool. Look at it like one dice pool represents your left hand and the other dice pool represents your right. Does that help?

Also, the goal of a two gun attack is to do two attacks with one simple action. You are actually limiting the usefulness of two guns by making one Simple Action with one gun and then another Simple Action shot. Better to get in four burst in (two at 8 dice and two at 3 dice) I say.

Keep it simple, guys, and just quote the book:


SR4A 152.


SR4A 150


SR4A 150

So to sum up:

Falconer is wrong in his assertion. The end of the quoted sentence quite clearly indicates that recoil is applied per weapon. However, if the first weapon is not modded up enough to fully negate the recoil, the excess does carry over to the second.

Dr. Funkenstein is wrong in his assertion. Recoil is escalating, i.e., cumulative.

Also, you only split your DP if you're firing both weapons with one simple action. As far as I can tell, you can't fire both weapons at once using a Complex action at all. So you can't split your DP, and then do a Full Wide Long Burst from both guns.

Ah see, I still set the splitting of the dice pool as basically representing one dice pool is your left and one dice pool is your right. As long as you attack with both guns with one simple action then you split the pool. We are saying the same thing here I think...

If you attack twice with one of your guns then I guess you wouldn't split the dice pool but I think as a GM I would apply a modifier for not holding the gun properly.. Eh, maybe not...

Firing one gun with a simple action and then the other gun with another simple is wasting the use of having two weapons in the first place and that is to put two attacks out with one simple action.

Darkeus, there's no reason to say that one *must* fire both guns together in a Simple Action. It's an option. Otherwise, one's free to spend one Simple Action on the right hand, and the remaining Simple Action on the left hand. This uses up your whole Turn, a fair trade for *not* splitting the pool.

There is nothing in the rules preventing you from firing both with a single Simple Action, splitting your pool, and then doing so a second time, also splitting your pool. You get two Simple Actions a round, after all.

But this is not tactically sound as you are eliminating the purpose of using a second firearm. The only reason to use two guns really is to perform two gun attacks with one simple action.

Dude above is right that I don't think you even have enough time in a combat action to fire four burst. Nevermind that...

Edit: Well, there is also nothing in the rules that says you can't either...

Ah heck, scooped...

I did say RC was applied per weapon (and that it's cumulative across the phase). Just SUBTLY different than what was asserted.

Since you insist on quote in full:
"Burst fire WEAPONS receive a -2 recoild modifier for the first burst fired in that Action Phase and a -3 for the second. Long bursts suffer -5 (first burst in phase) or -6 recoil (second). ..."

If you have 2 weapons... it's still -5 and -6. Not -5 and -5... which is quibbling over all of a single die. That was the only point of contention I had! Which started this whole firestorm of half-understood rules and misrepresentations!


If the rules CLEARLY applied per weapon (and not per phase) then proper grammatical wording would be "A weapon that fires..." not "Weapons that fire..." or "A burst fire weapon receives..."


Darkeus:
It's not all benefit... there's a -2 off-hand modifier penalty. The only reason to do it is to 'double-up' on the available recoil compensation. While it may be 'bad form' it does follow the john Woo 'rule of cool' so people enjoy it in game.

It's crazy to say that you can't, shouldn't, or wouldn't spend your two allotted Simple Actions firing one weapon each. Just because you have the *different* option of firing them together, and also doing that twice, doesn't remove the first option. And it's better (probably), because no recoil, and full dice.

It's not uncommon for Sk8 to use a pair of modified 5-7c's (that built-in point of RC is a nice starting point for modding) and two Simple Actions to fire two Long Bursts in a turn... long burst from the first, long burst from the second. It's also not uncommon for him to use those same guns, two simple actions, and a split die pool to fire four Short Bursts in a turn. If nothing else, you're gaming the numbers there... the target resists those bursts with a -0,-1,-2,-3 penalty, and you get twice as many attempts to get a hit in... this is mostly useful against targets at very close range with minimal penalties, of course.

Another rude thing to take note of is splitting dice pools for akimbo fire and the Specialization modifier. Akimbo fire removes the bonuses for laser sights and smartguns, true... but it doesn't remove the bonus for Specialization, and that bonus gets applied *after* you split the pools, just like penalties do.

Adding Ambidextrous and a Specialization in Automatics: Machine Pistols (or hell, Akimbo... I've got a character who's Pistols spec is in that) is all of 12 karma, or a couple of nights of play. Not a huge investment if you want to go John Woo style.

That to me pretty clearly implies all weapons of a given type (Burst Fire) follow this rule.

What you fail to comprehend is it is not discussing the use of multiple weapons in any way, shape, or form (not even by implication or indirectly). It is referencing a specific type of weapons - those that fire in Burst Fire mode.


Irrelevant. Dr. Funkenstein was addressing your response. It does not matter whatsoever who the response was initially directed at.

And at no point (in this instance) did I see him "putting words in your mouth".


False.

It is not worded in the most effective manner, but the recoil of any shot is equal to ( X - 1 - R), where X is equal to the total number of bullets fired in that Action Phase (from that weapon), including the current attack, and R is equal to the weapon's Recoil Compensation.

First Attack - Burst Fire. You use 3 Bullets, & suffer 2 Recoil. Recoil Compensation applies.
Second Attack - Burst Fire. You use 3 bullets, & suffer additional 3 Recoil [total 5]. Recoil Compensation applies.


When people say Recoil Compensation only applies once per Action Phase, they are essentially correct, simply with a different viewpoint (and if I remember, this is how the FAQ words it, piece of shit it is). 1 point of Recoil Compensation cancels out 1 point of Recoil in any given Action Phase.

Could Funkenstein and anyone else who thinks that single weapon recoil isn't cumulative across your two Simple Actions in a Pass please go somewhere else?

You know, I was fine with accepting everyone else's reading (even though I disagree in spirit) and moving on, but now... nope. I think I'll stick around a bit.

For me, it's pretty much like Falconer's issue; a difference on how things are worded and, as a result, being read. Just like "burst-fire weapons" means any kind of burst-fire weapon in general as opposed to all the weapons being used simultaneously, I read things like "the second inflicts an additional –3 recoil (neutralized by recoil compensation, if any)" as in two separate instances; one does this, and the additional shot does this, both being neutralized by any recoil compensation, but never actually stacking with one another.

I understand where the difference of opinion is coming from now, and I'm fine with it because in this light, it really is a bit foggy. I just don't agree with that reading, but I have no problem accepting my reading may be wrong in this case (and that certainly wouldn't be the first time).

I think the main reason I prefer my reading is because it just makes more sense in my head. You're not firing randomly each initiative pass. It's not BANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANG (that's automatic fire as a single action)! It's BANGBANGBANG<quick reset>BANGBANGBANG (thus two separate actions)! I can see the second shot being a bit more difficult due to not resetting perfectly, but I don't see why the second shot would be so drastically worse than the first. I mean, the difference between -2 and -5 or -5 and -12 is monstrous. Why would the second burst-fire shot be 150%ish harder than the first? I can see it being 50%ish harder, but not that dramatically worse. If you were just squeezing the trigger at random, sure, I could see that then. But if it worked that way, it should all be one action rather than separate ones.

The lack of the text saying "burst-fire weapons receive a –2 recoil modifier for the first burst fired in that Action Phase and an additional –3 on top of the first shot (for a total modifier of -5) for the second" (underlined additions being my own) really seems to add to that. And unlike Falconer's ranting about their use of "burst-fire weapons," this seems to be a much more vital piece of confusing writing if it works the way you guys are saying it does. In fact, I can't justify a reason why it would be written the way it is if it did work that way, which kinda sucks. Actually I take that back, the only reason I can think of them for saying it the way they do is for purposes of recoil compensation. Which is kind of the crux of everyone's references to those rules.

But that's just my view and why I was saying what I said. I completely understand where you guys are coming from now at least.

Ok, look at the example on page 143 of SR4 (not SR4A, it is under Combat > Firearms > Burst-Fire Mode)

Slinger has an Uzi in hand, ready to fi re a burst
against the hit man that just took out his fr iend. Slinger
is rolling his Automatics 4 + Agility 5 (9 dice) [...] Though his recoil compensation
of 2 accounts for the burst’s–2 recoil, he’s also facing some
other modifi ers (–3 total, for a dice pool of 6). [...]
With his next Simple Action, Slinger’s facing a
lot of recoil, so he goes for a wide burst. Th e extra –3
recoil reduces his dice pool to 3

If recoil wasn't cumulative, he'd have

9 dice
-3 other modifiers
-3 recoil 2nd burst
+2 RC

= 5 dice. But the example says he has 3 dice, which is because the 2 dice from the first burst's recoil also applies.

It is clear that recoil is cumulative.

Why does a separate action bring up the quick reset? Just because the rules have actions being distinctive things doesn't mean your character shoots three bullets, then stops for a few seconds and goes "I wonder what I should do with my second action.... I think I'll shoot three more bullets" and then starts firing again. Remember that a complex action and two simple actions take the same amount of time, so firing two long bursts (HV, 12 bullets) takes the same amount of time as firing full auto (12 bullets on HV), and yet somehow by virtue of taking two simple actions, you somehow generate enough time to almost completely stabilize your arms and reset, even though comparison to full auto shows that you don't have that time.

Also, think of it this way. With two long bursts you're putting out 12 bullets, with one full burst you're putting out 12 bullets. Why is it that one method only generates 6 recoil, while the other generates 12 recoil? I mean, if recoil isn't cumulative, then shouldn't RC be double effective on full auto shots to make them on par recoil wise with two single action bursts as you have them? Otherwise there is no reason to ever use FA because you'll always get better recoil by doing double long bursts, even though you put out the exact same amount of lead.



But the text does have

There is no need for the 'on top of the first shot (for a total modifier of -5)' because it already has additional. If it didn't mean to add it, it would simply say 'the second inflicts a -3 recoil'. Then of course there is the example that Smokeskin pointed out, which quite clearly shows that you add them.

So yeah, I don't see any solid argument for not adding them.

As for splitting the DP, the rules fairly clearly state

Notice how it says that firing both with a single Simple Action results in the splitting of your DP, not firing one, and then firing the other. Remember, if you fire one, and then the other, then you have time to concentrate on each individual shot just as well as if you were using a single weapon and fired once, and then a second time. It's only when you're pulling the trigger on each of them at the same time that you have to split your focus (and thus your DP).

For shots requiring Complex Actions (or 'extended' Simple Actions like long bursts), all those bullets are being spit out at the same time with absolutely no break. BANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANG. Shots that use Simple Actions have a break in between, however minimal. BANGBANGBANG<pause>BANGBANGBANG. Which is why they're two separate actions as opposed to one. It also doesn't take an eternity of patience and recalculating your positioning to return the gun to its original position (or pretty much any position other than where the ammo is taking it in automatic fire), and the lack of being able to do so is even accounted for with the additional -1 penalty for the second shot. That said, why would that second Simple Action with a break inbetween be as equally inaccurate (if not moreso) as the single Complex Action with nonstop action for its duration?

If you add recoil compensation into the mix, the two Simple Actions are basically <little movement><pause><little movement>. Why would that second shot be so wild compared to the first?

I'm not arguing what the rules say or don't say at this point. I've already said I understand where you guys are coming from and agree that it's perfectly acceptable to see it that way. I just don't completely agree with the idea behind it. They're not equal.

Just acceptable to see it that way? It is RAW.

The idea behind it is that taking two bursts in the phase is pulling the trigger again quickly before the recoil has settled, somewhat like a double tap.

The break between bursts you're talking about would be if you only shot in one of your Simple Actions (the other used for Take Aim probably).

You still haven't addressed my main point. How is it that you can fire 12 bullets and have time for a pause by using two simple actions, when using a complex action also fires 12 bullets and doesn't have time for that pause? Why is it that a simple action automatically has a pause between it and another simple action? Remember, a simple action isn't an actual thing, it is simply a construct for our convince. Nothing in the books anywhere state that the amount of time to do two simple actions is any different than a single complex action. Nothing in the books state that there is a pause between what happens in one simple action and another.

You're applying an entirely arbitrary self ruling (That there is a pause between simple actions which is never mentioned or even implied) in order to overrule something that the book actually states (That recoil is additive).

Combat Turns, Initiative Passes, Action Phases, and even the actions themselves are all abstractions. Saying that one Complex Action is exactly equal in time to two Simple Actions is simply not correct or justifiable. About the same amount of time? Sure. But they're not identical by any measure. Changing a gun's firing mode, inserting a clip, firing a SA shot, and firing a SA shot after quick drawing the weapon all take a Simple Action, but the exact amount of time for each one is variable. You can also "sacrifice" a Simple Action for a Free Action, meaning they take roughly the same amount of time, too. Or the exact same amount of time by your assertion.

I've always found it kind of odd how people who have issues/get into arguments about firearms in the game always have trouble with the abstract nature of the rules. But that's neither here not there.


Actually I'm applying reality. When someone is firing two shots from a burst-fire equivalent weapon in real life, is there a pause in between the shots? How about when they're using a full-auto weapon with the same total of rounds for a single shot? Is it really BANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANG or BANGBANGBANG-BANGBANGBANG?

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

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.