[Xenon]

To be fair, rules in the 6E are less than crisp and even though there are fewer rules in 6E there still seem to be a rather high number of rules that are ambiguous and can be read in more than one way.

But even though a lot of text have been cut out, which at times could make them harder to understand, they are also largely still based upon the rules from 5th edition (and the rules structure used in editions before that). And it is also not uncommon that you need to bounce rules from two-three different places before you get the full picture. Also, just because it doesn't say you can't do it does not mean you automatically can do it.

The only thing that is crystal clear is that you take the multiple attack minor action with wide burst. Almost everything beyond that point can be debated, I guess...

(but since I have not found any contradicting rules with my reading and since I have also not found any strange side-effects from my reading I will probably stick with it - unless perhaps we get some official clarification).

Having said that, I am pretty confident that you are not allowed to spend 40 ammo in one action, as OP claims

[MercilessMing]

Having said that, I am pretty confident that you are not allowed to spend 40 ammo in one action, as OP claims

And to be clear, it's not that I want to be able to do that, I'm trying to figure out the intention of the rules so I can make some informed decisions at home.  It does seem from the words they chose for multi attack that it wasn't supposed to be limited to splitting a burst and full auto mode.  It was written much more generically than that.  And I don't think it needs to be limited much in order to be balanced, because splitting the dice pool is self-limiting.  Just gotta decide on a limit for the sake of Anticipation, and then make full auto not terrible.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Having said that, I am pretty confident that you are not allowed to spend 40 ammo in one action, as OP claims

And to be clear, it's not that I want to be able to do that, I'm trying to figure out the intention of the rules so I can make some informed decisions at home.  It does seem from the words they chose for multi attack that it wasn't supposed to be limited to splitting a burst and full auto mode.  It was written much more generically than that.  And I don't think it needs to be limited much in order to be balanced, because splitting the dice pool is self-limiting.  Just gotta decide on a limit for the sake of Anticipation, and then make full auto not terrible.

Easiest thing I can suggest is consider that Multiple Attacks only works with guns when you're using 2 guns.  If you want to attack more than one person while using one rapid fire gun, use the firing mode rules instead.

[Xenon]

Having said that, I am pretty confident that you are not allowed to spend 40 ammo in one action, as OP claims

It was written much more generically than that.  And I don't think it needs to be limited much in order to be balanced....

Multiple Attacks just explain how you resolve it IF you are eligible to take it. Actions themselves need to explicitly mention that you are allowed to combine it with the Multiple Attacks Minor Action. It was the same in 5th edition. Just because an action does not restrict you from using multiple attacks does not automatically mean you can combine it with multiple attacks.


In 6E you are eligible to take the Multiple Attacks Minor Action when you use Wide Burst (attacking two different targets). If you have 4 edge you are also eligible to take Anticipation with this action. This part is clear and not under debate at all. BF in 5th edition also explicitly mentioned that you were allowed to take the Multiple Attack Free Action (but your two targets had to be within medium range).


It seem as if you are also eligible to take the Multiple Attacks Minor Action when you dual wield (attacking two different targets or the same target twice). This can be debated, but Multiple Attacks in relation to dual wield is mentioned in the Off-Hand Attacks section on p. 110 and it is also again referenced in the Multiple Attacks section on pl 111.

If you also have 4 edge, wield 2 firearms and attack two different targets rather than the same target once you are also eligible to take Anticipation while dual wielding (but if you are not ambidextrous you will still split the pool for your offhand).


In addition to this you can also Multiple Attack (but without using a Multiple Attack Minor Action) if you are using Full Auto (attacking multiple targets or the same target by splitting the pool). This part is clear and not under debate at all. This is a change from 5th edition that instead had rules for suppressive fire when using FA firing mode (sort of a frontal AoE cone that attacked both friend and foe).

Note that Multiple Attacks seem to limit this use to either "multiple targets, or you could attempt two attacks against the same target" (which I read as you may only split the pool twice when attacking the same target) and the number of attacks also seem to be restricted to if "ammunition ... allow it" (which I read as if you may only split your pool a maximum of 10 times when attacking multiple targets).

Since you are not using the Multiple Attack Minor Action you are also not eligible for Anticipation.



Unlike 5th edition, Semi Automatic attacks *don't* mention anything about taking the Multiple Attack Minor Action.  *Nor* does throwing weapons (Athletics). *Or* Melee (Close Combat). In 5th edition you could use SA to fire on up to 3 different targets as long as they were within medium range. Hence why I proposed a house rule to allow you to fire at two different targets if you are using SA mode.

To take the Multiple Attack Minor Action with throwing weapons or melee weapons it seem as if you need to dual wield (attacking two different targets within reach or the same target twice). In 5th edition they explicitly mentioned that you could take the Multiple Attacks free action.


Having said that, rules as written in 6E are less than crisp and you can probably argue that they can be read in more than one way. But the above reading is the one that makes most sense (especially when comparing the rules in 6E with how they worked in 5th edition).

Also, alternative reading quickly get super crazy (like being eligible to take Anticipation with Full Auto to attack 10 times or even 20 times while dual wielding). There are also no examples that suggest that this is legal. That the outcome seem highly unlikely and there is no supporting examples is often indicators that you are not reading the rules correctly....


But it is your table. Your rules. If you wish to rule that you are allowed to fire 40 bullets with BF mode then you can do that. There is no Shadowrun rule-police that will pin you to the wall if you do. However, you might want to make this reading clear to your players so they are aware.

[skalchemist]

Multiple Attacks just explain how you resolve it IF you are eligible to take it. Actions themselves need to explicitly mention that you are allowed to combine it with the Multiple Attacks Minor Action. It was the same in 5th edition. Just because an action does not restrict you from using multiple attacks does not automatically mean you can combine it with multiple attacks.

In 6E you are eligible to take the Multiple Attacks Minor Action when you use Wide Burst (attacking two different targets). If you have 4 edge you are also eligible to take Anticipation with this action. This part is clear and not under debate at all. BF in 5th edition also explicitly mentioned that you were allowed to take the Multiple Attack Free Action (but your two targets had to be within medium range).

I simply don't agree with your "explicit permission" interpretation of all this.  That isn't stated anywhere, and a plain reading of the multiple attack rules to me makes it clear that you can do it pretty much on any attack. (EDIT: as an aside, I totally agree that this "gets super crazy" if taken to its logical conclusion.)  I don't think this "permission" element is supported by the text.  (That being said, we've already established that my attention to detail is not great...) 

Or rather, I think it is a way to approach the text.  Its a hermaneutic approach, which is appropriate since the 6E rules themselves often make the biblical text seem clear, concise, and easily understood!  You are coming at things from the perspective of "if it is not specifically allowed, it is disallowed", I think.  If that is your assumption, than I can see why you would say what you are saying.  But that is not my assumption.  I don't think your reading makes the most sense, as you suggest, but I also don't want to suggest that your reading makes no sense, either.  Especially now that I have gone back and looked at some sections (like that section on page 109 on firing modes), I can see much more sense in your interpretation than I did at first.  I can see your logic, I just don't agree with where it leads.

Specifically on wide burst, though I went and checked and I'll be damned, it really is even more murky than I thought it was.  I now see where you are coming from on that.  The distinction on page 109 between how burst fire is described and how full auto is described certainly implies that you need to use a Multiple Attack action with wide burst, otherwise why specify you didn't need to use it for full auto? 

I think really the issue is that these rules are just incomprehensible on their own terms.  They do not explain themselves, so we have no choice but to interpret them locally based on whatever theories and assumptions we think best.  So to contradict myself given the first sentence of this post, Xenon, I don't think you are wrong.  I just think your way of looking at it is only one of many possible ways to look at it, (as you yourself state) since the text itself can't actually answer the question.

As an aside, I'm very happy so far playing Shadowrun 6E, its been fun, but I find this sort of thing inexcusible.  Writing clear rules on how actions work and which ones apply when is NOT HARD.  Plenty of rulebooks do a pretty good job of it with systems that are not much less complicated than Shadowrun 6E.  We shouldn't HAVE to have discussions that are akin to theologians discussing the meaning of the Babel story or the parable of the talents.  A rulebook is not an ancient sacred text.

[Hobbes]

 You are coming at things from the perspective of "if it is not specifically allowed, it is disallowed", I think. 

That's pretty much the basis of RAW arguments.  Otherwise:

Player "I can Fly" 
GM "What?" 
Player "It doesn't say I can't, so I can Fly!" 
GM "......"   

RAW arguments typically view rules as enabling what can be done.  So, yes, if it's not specifically allowed, you can't do it.  At least when it comes to ticky-tacky rules interactions.  Clearly players can open a can of soup even though there are not explicit rules to cover "can opening".

[skalchemist]

 You are coming at things from the perspective of "if it is not specifically allowed, it is disallowed", I think. 

That's pretty much the basis of RAW arguments.  Otherwise:

Player "I can Fly" 
GM "What?" 
Player "It doesn't say I can't, so I can Fly!" 
GM "......"   

RAW arguments typically view rules as enabling what can be done.  So, yes, if it's not specifically allowed, you can't do it.  At least when it comes to ticky-tacky rules interactions.  Clearly players can open a can of soup even though there are not explicit rules to cover "can opening".

That isn't quite what I would consider the alternative, Hobbes.  Its not "if the rules don't disallow it, its allowed", exactly.  Its more, "if one rule seems to allow it, another rule has to specifically disallow it".  In this specific case, I feel that the multiple attack rules, if read at face value, indicate you use an minor action and can attack an extra target.   They don't have any caveats, which they could have easily had, like they could say "where specifically allowed elsewhere in the rules, spend a minor action..."  So unless something elsewhere says that is not true, its the baseline to start from.   

Edit: I just went and read them again, and I am even more convinced of this.  The sections on page 42 and 111 are describing an overarching rule.  There are precious few caveats in them, and certainly no caveats with respect to any other specific rules, such as firing mode.  So from my perspective, this is the rule; if this is not the case the text needs to specifically state it (as it does with full auto). 

I agree completely that leads to ALL KINDS OF CRAZINESS elsewhere, like Burst Firing five guys at once with Anticipation or some such.  So it has to have some local house rule control of some sort, I think.  But in my opinion you have a broad overarching rule here, in a nutshell "a minor action lets you attack an extra target".

[Hobbes]

Multi-attack has limits though.  Number of bullets, clear targets, reach of melee weapons, all subject to GM call.  And Full Auto fire mode has separate rules from Multi-attack as it doesn't require the Minor Action, so it's arguably it's own deal.

[skalchemist]

Multi-attack has limits though.  Number of bullets, clear targets, reach of melee weapons, all subject to GM call.  And Full Auto fire mode has separate rules from Multi-attack as it doesn't require the Minor Action, so it's arguably it's own deal.

Oh, I agree completely, Hobbes.  I'm not saying it is limitless, and apologize if that was my suggestion.   But that is really what I am getting at.  There is a general rule.  The rules put some fictional limits on its use, "fictional" in this case meaning "stuff that the GM has to agree is happening in the fiction of the game for you to use the rule." But I can't find any hint of what I think Xenon is suggesting is the case, that this rule only applies in certain narrow rule-defined situations like Off Hand Attacks and Burst Fire firing mode.   I have misinterpreted you before, Xenon, so I apologize in advance if I am doing so again.

To state my hermanuetic more clearly, I think Xenon is using...

* If it is not specifically allowed, it is is disallowed.

Mine would be...

* it is is allowed generally, it has to be disallowed specifically.

Those two are not actually contradictory.  Its all in the word "generally". 

To rephrase your example...

Player: I can fly!
GM: what?
Player: the rule says "I can generate effects with wind and air that can lift weights and move things about".  I am lifting my own weight and moving myself about.  Sure, the word "fly" is not in that sentence, but clearly I am a weight that can be moved about!
GM: well...crap.  There goes my whole plotline.  Wish I had noticed that.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Multi-attack has limits though.  Number of bullets, clear targets, reach of melee weapons, all subject to GM call.  And Full Auto fire mode has separate rules from Multi-attack as it doesn't require the Minor Action, so it's arguably it's own deal.

Yep.  Not that it matters for English speakers (or maybe it does...) the German language CRB changed the Wide Burst to also say it does not require the expenditure of the Multiple attacks action, in the same way as FA doesn't require it.

Again, I think the best way to reconcile the two seperate sets of rules governing "attacking more than one person at a time" is to just say you don't use both sets of rules at the same time (unless you're dual wielding burst fire guns).

[skalchemist]

Multi-attack has limits though.  Number of bullets, clear targets, reach of melee weapons, all subject to GM call.  And Full Auto fire mode has separate rules from Multi-attack as it doesn't require the Minor Action, so it's arguably it's own deal.

Yep.  Not that it matters for English speakers (or maybe it does...) the German language CRB changed the Wide Burst to also say it does not require the expenditure of the Multiple attacks action, in the same way as FA doesn't require it.

THATS where I got that idea from!  I now remember seeing that in one of those summaries of changes in the German language edition and then thought it had made its way into the English language version for some reason.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Multi-attack has limits though.  Number of bullets, clear targets, reach of melee weapons, all subject to GM call.  And Full Auto fire mode has separate rules from Multi-attack as it doesn't require the Minor Action, so it's arguably it's own deal.

Yep.  Not that it matters for English speakers (or maybe it does...) the German language CRB changed the Wide Burst to also say it does not require the expenditure of the Multiple attacks action, in the same way as FA doesn't require it.

THATS where I got that idea from!  I now remember seeing that in one of those summaries of changes in the German language edition and then thought it had made its way into the English language version for some reason.

Indeed.  I take this all to mean that you "don't have to" spend the minor action, because you actually May Not combine Wide Bursts with Multiple Attacks.

[Hobbes]

Right, by my count there are four separate rules for attacking multiple targets.  Wide Burst, Full Auto, and the Multi-attack action which is in the book twice, and worded differently in each place.  Then you have Edge Actions like Anticipate, and the Minor Action Called Shot that all theoretically could be used with those Attacks.  Because my Rigger has 5 Edge, +4d6 initiative, and quad-linked HMGs on his Bulldog and wants to destroy a modest sized commercial structure RIGHT NOW!   

Presumably, the FAQ document will clear some of the rules interactions but there are arguably different ways to read them.

[MercilessMing]

If you also have 4 edge, wield 2 firearms and attack two different targets rather than the same target once you are also eligible to take Anticipation while dual wielding (but if you are not ambidextrous you will still split the pool for your offhand).

You may want to look at that again; the way I read it, splitting your dice pool is a multiple attack penalty, not an off-hand penalty.  Making a regular attack with your off-hand doesn't split your dice pool.  Ambidextrous shouldn't have an effect on it.

Unlike 5th edition, Semi Automatic attacks *don't* mention anything about taking the Multiple Attack Minor Action.  *Nor* does throwing weapons (Athletics). *Or* Melee (Close Combat).

I don't see burst fire mention anything about the Multiple Attack Minor Action either.  In fact, what's your basis for saying that wide burst fire definitely, no question, needs to use the minor action?  My basis would be that all multiple attacks need to use the minor action unless they explicitly say otherwise.  However your interpretation seems to be that only specific examples of multiple attacks are valid multiple attacks.  That leaves BF, FA, and two-weapon fighting.  That's a super narrow interpretation.  But I understand you like to try to find what the book explicitly allows and houserule the rest.

[Xenon]

Your offhand attack, while dual wielding two firearms and attacking with both of them at the same time or if using a single firearm for a wide burst attack, cannot benefit from anticipation because anticipation is an edge action. To earn or spend edge with your offhand you need to be ambidextrous.



As for your other question:

It is clear that wide burst is used to attack two targets.

The general blanket rule when attacking two targets is that you spend a minor multiple attacks action.

Wide burst need to explicitly mention that it does not use the multiple attack minor action or else it will follow the general blanket rule.

Full auto does explicitly mention that the minor action is not used. Wide burst does not.

Many rules in Shadowrun (any edition) follow the exact same patten.