[Sendaz]

Oh Yes...

Yes, please.

[gradivus]

*snip*
And again, I'd allow multiple attacks on the same target but it isn't RAW.

So let me get this straight.  You agree that the action should allow multiple attacks on one target, but you argue semantics anyway?

FWIW, I disagree that this is not RAW.  I believe that this is yet another example of the old editing techniques working against us.  Also, I believe that not every word in the book is organized in the most logical fashion, and therefore cannot always be taken as literal gospel.  Instead, we need to take contradictory information like this with a grain of salt.

RAW does not equate to RAI. However, for many groups, RAW is what they go by because RAI is a slippery slope indeed.

[Namikaze]

RAW does not equate to RAI. However, for many groups, RAW is what they go by because RAI is a slippery slope indeed.

The problem is that any discussion of RAW which involves contradictory statements and rules will inevitably lead in one of two directions.  Extreme pedantry, or dealing with rules as intended.  Basically, we both agree that the rules as written on page 196 is the way we both want to play it at our respective tables.  But because of two words in a different section, people might interpret a whole section differently.  Two words should not have that much power.  And arguing over two words is exactly what I mean by "extreme pedantry."  So if you want extreme pedantry, I can play that game too.

I'm inclined to take the remaining two hundred one words more strongly than I'll take two.  The two in question being "multiple targets" from page 164.  The remaining two hundred one words are those from pages 164 and 196, not a one of which mentions targets.  Also, I'm inclined to accept that five paragraphs with an example (the example not being very relevant to this discussion) as being more... powerful than a single paragraph.  To top all that off, it's worth pointing out the entry on page 164 states that one should refer to page 196 for rules in using multiple attacks.  And page 196 pretty clearly does not limit the multiple attacks to multiple targets.

[Xenon]

When a character uses the multiple attacks free action it allows them to choose another target; they can't choose the same target again because that is not another target.

the free action is called Multiple Attacks and not Multiple Targets for a reason. You can attack the same target multiple times within the same attack action. A perfectly good example of this would be when you weave multiple spells together and cast them all at the same time. At the same target.

Casting multiple throwing weapons on a single target in a single complex action is another.

Shooting two individual targets is as hard or harder than aligning both firearms to shoot a single target. If you can shoot two individual targets with two firearms then [of course] you should be able to fire them at one single

There is just no RAW that explicitly spell out that it this mechanic you use to resolve it. But as i see it there is no other supported way of doing it (20 bullet burst with -19 dice to defend against, really?), the game mechanic is used elsewhere (magic, throwing weapons), not being possible at all is not really an option (Hollywood action movies, multiple targets allowed to use this mechanic and single target should not be more impossible).

By a strict reading of the book you have explicit rules that tell you to use the multiple attacks free action when attacking multiple targets while dual wielding. By a strict reading of the book you will not find explicit rules how to resolve an attack against a single target (but saying that you can dual wield two SMGs and aim them at different targets before you pull the trigger but that you cannot aim them both at a single target before you pull the trigger make little to no sense if you ask me).

[Xenon]

Does that 2 target rule apply to melee weapons as well? (ex sword?) can i attack one target 2x with a split die pool with my swords?

this is resolved as one attack (using a combination of damage and accuracy stats from both weapons). See run and gun for details.

[Quatar]

The question is, does it even matter that much, or is the differences negible? Of attacking a single time without splitting or splitting and attacking same target.

Attacking the same target twice vs once means:
- half dice pool with each attack => half the expected hits each attack
- defender rolls defense twice => less overall net hits => less chance of even hitting + less damage added to the damage rating
- defender rolls armor+body twice => mode damage reduction
- Attacker adds base damage of the gun twice => well more damage, but that might get eaten up by the former two points

So just an easy example (assuming average 1/3 chance of success).
Attacker: 24 dicepool
Defender: 9 dodge
Damage: 8P
Armor+Body: 18
(I'm just making up numbers, not having anything special in mind)

One shot:
Attacker Expected hits: 8
Defender exp. hits: 3
Net hits 5:
Damage: 8+5
Armor roll: 6
Total damage: 7

Two shots:
First shot:
Attacker hits: 4
Defender hits: 3
Net hits: 1
Damage: 8+1
Armor Roll: 6
Damage total: 3

Second Shot:
Attacker hits: 4
Defender hits: 2 (since his dicepool is 8 now)
Net hits: 2
Damage 8+2
Armor roll: 6
Damage 4

Total damage 3+4 = 7

Doesn't look a lot different. It might be different using other numbers, as I said I just pulled them out of my ass.

Now it might be different with Full Auto too, but I'm not sure a "20 round burst" would be worth it, since I have seen very few people that even spot such a high defense score that it would matter.

I also know the math used is not too solid, as I should have used something like "chance to hit at all" or something and not just "average hits". (In the 2-shot example it's alot easier for the defender to avoid all damage by just rolling 1 success more or the attacker 1 less. In the first example, that is a lot harder)

[jim1701]

You are forgetting one very important factor.  The accuracy of the weapon(s) used. 

[Xenon]

You are forgetting one very important factor.  The accuracy of the weapon(s) used.

This

People that tend towards dual wielding are often ambidextrous and have huge dice pools (maybe even adepts). Google Revy Two Hands Black Lagoon for the archetype i am talking about.

Splitting pool for a chance to attack the same target twice is only something you benefit from when you have huge enough dice pools to reliable hit the cap or when the target(s) does not get to take a defense test in the first place (for example when attacking an unaware or surprised target).