[Xenon]

...you can't typically fire for both of your simple actions... 

No, but you can fire for a full complex action (which would be shooting for an entire action phase)
(With FA that would be 10 bullets. With BF that would be a Long Burst of 3+3=6 bullets. With SA that would be a SA-burst of 1+1+1=3 bullets).

In this case you would not reset recoil between action phases and you would get progressive recoil that carry over (no matter how you read the rules).



If you only spend a simple action (only shooting for half an action phase and with your other simple action taking an action other shooting  -- or "not shooting for an entire action phase") then you would reset recoil until the next action phase(*)
(With FA that would be 6 bullets. With BF that would be one 3 bullet burst. With SA that would be 1 bullet. With SS that would be 1 bullet)

(*)Depending on your interpretation of RAW. As I said, there are two ways to read the rule.


Personally I think it make a lot of sense that if you take time stabilize your weapon between your bursts (only spending a simple action to fire bullets) then you would not get progressive recoil the next action phase. If not then you run into the dilemma where you can have a marksman expert strength maxed out troll with a gasvent 3 light pistol in a gyromount (for sake of argument we bend the rules and let you use a gasvent III and gyromount on a lightpistol) shooting one single bullet every action phase (which is once every 3 seconds or in some rare cases once every 1.5 seconds for most non-wired trolls) eventually getting so much recoil that he can not hit a stationary unaware target 2 meters in front of him. That simply does not make sense.

At my table recoil reset to zero if you spend a simple action not shooting bullets. At this point I don't even think I have to call it a house rule (this is after all the interpretation that Aaron did as well. I read no indication from any other official freelancer or official developer that it would work in any other way).


If you want to use progressive recoil between action phases when you only fire one single bullet or one single 3-bullet burst (and more importantly if you think it make sense). Go ahead. It is your table. Your rules.

[Crunch]

There are two ways to read the rule, and then there is Aaron's reading which is not a possible reading of the text.

You can read it as "an action other than [shooting][for the entire action phase]"
In which case you can't take a shooting action in the phase to reset initiative.

you can read it as "an action other than[shooting for the entire action phase]"
In which only complex actions can carry forward recoil.

Aaron's reading [an action other than shooting] makes no effort to explain the rest of the sentence and would be a straight up errata.

[Kincaid]

There are two ways to read the rule, and then there is Aaron's reading which is not a possible reading of the text.

You can read it as "an action other than [shooting][for the entire action phase]"
In which case you can't take a shooting action in the phase to reset initiative.

you can read it as "an action other than[shooting for the entire action phase]"
In which only complex actions can carry forward recoil.

Aaron's reading [an action other than shooting] makes no effort to explain the rest of the sentence and would be a straight up errata.

I can't see how it's not the first reading.  If taking a simple action reset your progressive recoil, heavy pistols, when not used for a semi-auto burst, would never suffer from any recoil.  Given that recoil seems to be designed to be harsher in 5E, I can't believe that's design intent.

[Crunch]

I can't see how it's not the first reading.  If taking a simple action reset your progressive recoil, heavy pistols, when not used for a semi-auto burst, would never suffer from any recoil.  Given that recoil seems to be designed to be harsher in 5E, I can't believe that's design intent.

That's how I've always read it.

Aaron has indicated that the entire rule hinges around the wording [an action] and initiative resets any time you take any action other than shooting even if the action other than shooting is a simple. So Aaron claims that Shoot Aim Shoot would never generate recoil of any kind.

Aaron has access to the rules comittee, but if that's the rules intent they need to errata the whole phrase because his reading is simply not a possible construction.

[Michael Chandra]

The thing that confused me with Aaron's dumpshock statements was that he was talking about his own intent when designing the rule. But the printed rule doesn't match his intent, so even if it was his own intent, he may simply have been overruled. Now I can understand asking for intent with unclear phrasing, I've done that before, but when the phrasing doesn't match the intent, clearly intent is no longer what matters, except for the intent of Hardy.

[Agonar]

Well, the example one p.177 seems to indicate that a simple action during a Phase does not reset the recoil counter, but rather a Phase where no shooting happens.

One Gun Recoil
Phase 1 - Complex Action for SA Burst, gains recoil
Phase 2 - Single Shot, gains recoil, Simple Action to take cover (no mention of this simple action removing recoil)
Phase 3 - No shooting at all, and a simple action to take aim - and specific mention now that his recoil resets.
Phase 4 - SA Burst again, gaining recoil again

Now, if it was meant to be that even a simple action in a Phase not spent firing reset recoil modifiers, than the example presumably would have specified that the recoil modifier was reset after Phase 2, but it didn't.  It waited until Phase 3, where there was no firing at all to specifically state that the recoil mod was reset.

[Xenon]

Well, at my table we reset progressive recoil when you no longer fire bullets as fast as possible and instead spend time to stabilize your weapon between shots or short burts. Why? Because it make most sense.

Building progressive recoil when you spam bullets as fast as possible? Sure. I can buy that. Somewhat.

But in my world of SR5 it simply make no sense that you continue to build progressive recoil all the way to the point where it will be impossible to hit anything when using controlled fire where you have enough time between each and every shot to take a short pause (to aim down your sights or however you wish to spend the spare simple action).


I don't even think I have to call it a house rule at this point since RAW seem to be ambiguous (not the only place in the book where the text can be read in more than one way), since it make a lot more sense (at least compared to the alternative) and since Aaron at least seem to suggest that RAI also is that progressive recoil reset if you don't spam bullets as fast as possible...

But even if a future errata or FAQ declare that you need to spend a full IP not shooting bullets at all to reset progressive recoil I will probably house rule it away anyway. A slow non wired person would need up to 6 seconds(!) between single bullets to not suffer progressive recoil (and with "only" 3 seconds between shots his aim will eventually get so bad due to recoil that it will be impossible for him to hit anything - seriously?).

[Nico]

Technically, one shot per turn (every six seconds) would already amass tremendous recoil with the strict reading. If you wanted to fully overcome any recoil and had only one IP/turn, you could only shoot five bullets per minute.

One could argue for a cap on recoil, but I think that oversimplified as the system is, it's much more convenient to just call the cap on recoil the point where you realize that your best option right now if you want to keep holding onto the trigger is using suppressive fire.

It doesn't make any sense at all that having to operate a bolt or slide, or some other kind of single shot action, would help you deal with recoil better and faster than being able to completely focus on controlling your gun in the same time. This issue is easily fixed by the more sensible reading of the ambigous rules. On the other hand it is also ludicrous that a Krime Cannon is easier to control than a Fichetti Tiffany Needler, but I think a departure from that would make combat and recoil a lot more complicated and bookkeepery, unless you completely overhauled the recoil rules.

[Michael Chandra]

Honestly, everyone has 2 recoil compensation by themselves and can easily score another point or two with the right weapon. If by the time you, as a 1-IP-per-CT person, are starting to suffer from recoil, the combat isn't over yet, you're not in the right league anyway.

[Xenon]

The example is applicable on single BF and 6 bullet short FA burst as well. shrug.

[Michael Chandra]

If someone wants to fire FA, then having to not fire due to recoil is the price he pays for being able to reliably hit his enemies. Everything comes at a price. If recoil resets so easily, then SS and SA weapons lose a lot of value, which means the Longarms skill becomes a bad thing to take rather than a different tactical option. So you end up in the SR4 situation, where Automatics was the optimal combat skill.

Still, if you want to play your games in movie-style, there's nothing wrong with that. But I don't think it's a flaw in the original rules.

[Xenon]

fire One 3-bullet burst (which take ~0.2 sec) and then have to wait 6 seconds before you can fire again to avoid progressive recoil is not real life realistic.

Fire one 3-bullet burst and then wait 2.8 seconds until you fire one more 3-bullet burst to avoid progressive recoil is not Hollywood realism. It is real life realistic.

If I wanted Hollywood realism then I would not have progressive recoil at all, even when you fire bullets as fast as you can without pause.


The drawback of using a short 6 bullet FA burst is that you need a combined recoil compensation of 6 points or you get a negative dice pool modifier. You need to have a heavy investment in strength and/or a weapon with gasvent systems and a shoulder stock.

It is also often more socially accepted to pack a handgun rather than an assault rifle... And FA burn a lot of ammo without really dealing any more damage (well it does, indirectly, by reducing defenders dice pool -but not really if the attacker also get a smaller attack pool due to uncompensated recoil...)

[Michael Chandra]

Assuming 1 IP per professional shooter also isn't realistic even in real life, and let's not forget reality usually is Suppressive Fire. And if you go with 2 Simple Actions not shooting for recoil resetting, progressive recoil also isn't a problem.

As for costs: 100 nuyen per run won't make any impact.

[Xenon]

Also note that the complex actions to fire bullets (semi automatic burst long burst and and 10th bullet full automatic) all of them state "Remember the effects of cumulative recoil when using these fire modes"

but that there is no mentioning about the effects of cumulative recoil when shooting bullets as a simple action (single shot, semi automatic, burst fire or even 6 bullet full automatic - that generate twice as much recoil than a semi automatic burst).

[Michael Chandra]

And? Yes, we know there's over a dozen cases where the rules clearly contradict each other. So yes, until we get errata we can't say what the official rules are exactly supposed to be. But the official rules aren't relevant here. After all, you were talking about houseruling it if the official clarification turns out to be different from what you hope them to be, and I disagreed with the need there. RAW quotes are only relevant when debating RAI, not when debating RAD.