[Finstersang]

If you're gaining 2 edge on your attack, armor already HAS done something: the NPC not wearing enough of it has given you an edge point.

And in such a case, yes your armor can't give you more in the same round, but it can still deny edge to your attacker.  Armor is edge denial. Yes, not helping soak is a big change, but helping prevent edge actions from being used on you is still a big benefit.

Except that denying Edge can be very often be done with Body alone. There is a band of 8 Points of AR-DR difference in which nothing happens. Remove the benefit for having a DR that´s 4 points higher than AR (or vice-versa), and you have a margin of 8+ points in AR-DR difference until the outcome flips from "no one gets Edge" to "your opponent gets Edge". It´s a massive loss in verisimilitude.

That´s why I think that there also should be more than 3 outcomes (A gets Edge, B gets Edge, no one gets Edge) resulting from the AR-DR comparison.

Just have look at the DR of the Steel Lynx for perspective. 10 Body plus 16 Armor for a DR of 26! Is that even RAI or did someone accidentaly put in the originally intended total DR in as the Armor Score? Anyways, a DR this high high is possible with the right perks and good cover. This is way beyond any AR that can be fumbled together, so theres not difference if the Attacker uses a Anti-Material-Rifle or a Pistol, apart from the Damage Code. If the DR-AR difference is really extreme, there should be an additional benefit for the dominant character. Likewise, if the DR still has (if just a little) effect when the difference is lower than 4, it would add another incentive to watch these ratings whithout making the game too complicated.

Suggestion:

• AR is 10 points higher than DR: Defender can´t spend Edge on the defense (will happen rarely, but it´s possible)
• DR is 10 points higher than AR: Attacker can´t spend Edge on the Attack (will happen a bit more often)
• If the Attacker and the Defender roll a draw, use the DR-AR difference to determine who wins/hits (afaik, attackers hit on a draw in the current RAW). If these values are the same as well, use ERIC (Edge, Reaction, Intuition, Coin toss).
  

Meaningfull, yet easy to remember. Instead of 3 possible outcomes from the AR-DR comparison, you have 6 (even 7). These new effects are also not affected by the 2-Edge-Limit.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

... The big concern for me is getting dog piled by opponents all gaining edge. That would get ugly quick, especially if the grunts are kicking that edge up for the heavy hitters...

Well, in a dogpile scenario that's supposed to be rolled out as one combined attack (pg. 114, Grunt Groups) rather than X number of attacks for X number of NPCs attacking you.

Failing to combine them will of course run into edge problems... so don't fail to combine them

[Marcus]

Not because I'm a 6th edition apologist, but because of the inherent lack of logic to the argument.

Which doesn't change the fact that you are a 6th edition apologist SSDR.

The chance of gaining a point of edge b/c you happen to have 4 over your opponent is not an exciting mechanic. Passive mechanics like that are boring, and it's made worse b/c it has a dead zone, maybe if it was whichever was higher it would be more interesting but honestly i doubt it. Sure you can say you stopped them gaining edge, but the mutual no edge is actually the worst out come possible, if you actually buy into that edge is a good system. Combat should be dynamic and interesting not passive and static.

If we compare this the traditional armor rules from the previous editions of SR which had 2 damage preventing mechanics (one passive and one active). It's very easy to understand why folk claim armor does nothing in 6e.   

[Lormyr]

Well, in a dogpile scenario that's supposed to be rolled out as one combined attack (pg. 114, Grunt Groups) rather than X number of attacks for X number of NPCs attacking you.

Failing to combine them will of course run into edge problems... so don't fail to combine them

Right, but if I recall correctly I think it says they can group up to 5, then you make additional groups? No access to my pdf at present so can't verify, but memory is telling me that it's 5 max, and up to gm discretion on how/if to group them.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Well, in a dogpile scenario that's supposed to be rolled out as one combined attack (pg. 114, Grunt Groups) rather than X number of attacks for X number of NPCs attacking you.

Failing to combine them will of course run into edge problems... so don't fail to combine them

Right, but if I recall correctly I think it says they can group up to 5, then you make additional groups? No access to my pdf at present so can't verify, but memory is telling me that it's 5 max, and up to gm discretion on how/if to group them.

Of course it's technically possible to be facing more than 5 NPCs all ganging up on 1 PC. I'd say that in general it's fairly implausible, but is it possible: sure.

But even in such a case where a dozen or so NPCs are all ganging up on you it's probably with ranged attacks since that many people probably can't all maintain a melee stance and reach around you.  And if that many NPCs are all shooting at you, and you're trusting in armor rather than cover, you'll get Darwin'd out.  Granted, it would have worked in 5e.  I think we all are aware it doesn't work that way anymore in 6we... we just disagree as to whether that's a step forwards or backwards for game balance.

[dezmont]

Of course it's technically possible to be facing more than 5 NPCs all ganging up on 1 PC. I'd say that in general it's fairly implausible, but is it possible: sure.

The fact that Street Samurai literally can fight an entire gang on their own is the reason people sometimes call them solos, Omae. One of the PC archetypes is intended to be capable of fighting an arbitrary number of grunts. The system should support that well.

Obviously no SR edition actually did, big grunt fights were a nightmare, but at least in others Street Samurai were lore appropriately tough and strong, and if you were patient enough and had enough willpower to withstand a truly boring fight the sam would come out on top.

I kinda poked at this earlier in the thread, but without being mega tough and without really getting any new utility Samurai really suck to play in like every sense. Its worse than 5e riggers, and that is saying a lot. I don't see how anyone thought this was ok, because its really just awful.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Of course it's technically possible to be facing more than 5 NPCs all ganging up on 1 PC. I'd say that in general it's fairly implausible, but is it possible: sure.

The fact that Street Samurai literally can fight an entire gang on their own is the reason people sometimes call them solos, Omae. One of the PC archetypes is intended to be capable of fighting an arbitrary number of grunts. The system should support that well.

There's taking on an entire gang in batches of oh, say, 5 at a time... and then literally taking on an entire warehouse of people all at once.  You used to be able to trust in your Sleeping Tiger to flatten light pistol rounds. 

I'm not even going to apologize for considering it a superior system that you at least have to do something more than flick flattened slugs of lead off your jacket to survive a firing squad.

[dezmont]

Of course it's technically possible to be facing more than 5 NPCs all ganging up on 1 PC. I'd say that in general it's fairly implausible, but is it possible: sure.

The fact that Street Samurai literally can fight an entire gang on their own is the reason people sometimes call them solos, Omae. One of the PC archetypes is intended to be capable of fighting an arbitrary number of grunts. The system should support that well.

There's taking on an entire gang in batches of oh, say, 5 at a time... and then literally taking on an entire warehouse of people all at once.  You used to be able to trust in your Sleeping Tiger to flatten light pistol rounds. 

I'm not even going to apologize for considering it a superior system that you at least have to do something more than flick flattened slugs of lead off your jacket to survive a firing squad.

You can consider it anything you want. Lore wise the street samurai was, in fact, supposed to be able to ignore bullets, and 6e's combat really... is kinda awful. Like I don't know how anyone thought this was good because its so not fun. It is like DH but without the PCs being able to do equally crazy things to make up for the opposition being really scary.

Also sleeping tiger DIDN'T allow you to survive a firing squad on its own. It helped a lot, of course, but the math of soak means you need a lot for it to really statistically matter. 5 grunts with handguns will down you in a pass of firing if they each get 1 net hit against a sleeping tiger combo body 4 PC. In fact in that scenario you actually probably go down in two hits. Average post-soak damage is 7. To get to 0 post soak DV on that scenario vs handguns even 10% of the time you needed around 30 dice to soak. You didn't get that just for putting on pants, you devoted over 4 essence, the REAL resource of SR, to.

People meme about it being way too strong but really 5e armor was exactly as strong as it needed to be to keep bullets dangerous for most PCs while still allowing samurai to samurai if you REALLY invested in it. And editions shouldn't be designed to react to an exaggerated meme that falls appart if you pump some numbers into a calculator and look over things for 5 minutes.

[Lormyr]

Of course it's technically possible to be facing more than 5 NPCs all ganging up on 1 PC. I'd say that in general it's fairly implausible, but is it possible: sure.

Once you factor in play styles, situation (missions or home game), ect. it becomes too circumstantial for me to speculate on how it will be handled on average. Just like players focus fire down the bads, I don't think it is unfair for them to do the same.

And if that many NPCs are all shooting at you, and you're trusting in armor rather than cover, you'll get Darwin'd out.

Depending on what kind of professional rating we're talking about, you're most likely correct.

But that aside, much like how it irks you when folks claim armor does nothing, it irks me how the other side claims how vital it is. It's really not. Cold hard math doesn't lie, and it is trivial difficulty to acquire a Defense Rating without worn armor that renders Attack Ratings less than 15 from being able to acquire edge against you. I would also very much enjoy that side admitting that, on some builds (and those builds being the characters that should be getting the most use out of it, not the least), armor is in fact useless - because it is.

The fact that Street Samurai literally can fight an entire gang on their own is the reason people sometimes call them solos, Omae. One of the PC archetypes is intended to be capable of fighting an arbitrary number of grunts. The system should support that well.

This is still very possible. It's not until professional rating 3+ that opposition begins getting attack dice pools above 6. If we're talking average gangers, as defined by the CRB, a well-built frontliner will still be able to mow through groups of them.

[penllawen]

Nobody's dumb enough to not wear any armor. If you were armorless I'd give your enemies a second Edge point. Not sure why people constantly fall back to no-armor arguments.

Because they feel the system doesn't correctly incentivise PCs to wear armour. Which you appear to be agreeing with, as you just suggested a rule to increase the incentive...

[Shinobi Killfist]

I think this AR to DR for edge system could have worked but it should have been probably 3 difference maybe 2 and it should have been 1 edge per 3 differences. So a cyber troll in a armor jacket might have a dr of 18 and get 3 edge most attacks. 

Obviously have to get rid of the limits per turn and maybe get rid of some of the silly edge moves.

[penllawen]

That´s why I think that there also should be more than 3 outcomes (A gets Edge, B gets Edge, no one gets Edge) resulting from the AR-DR comparison.

I wonder if this is an artefact of the two-Edge-per-Turn cap. Imagine if Edge had no cap (with a corresponding adjustment to the cost of the higher Edge uses to keep things sane.) Now you could award, say, 1 point of Edge for every 3 points difference between AR and DR, or similar; now it starts to feel more meaningful and weighty and impactful.

I wonder if Edge went through a variation like that at some point but then everything got squashed down to a smaller numerical range and so we had to end up at "gain or lose 1 Edge", which just seems so... crude.

[dezmont]

Obviously have to get rid of the limits per turn and maybe get rid of some of the silly edge moves.

I actually like the edge moves. They are a legit good idea, basically giving combat PCs "Mana." Like if you HAD to remove the ability to be immune to bullets or at least unable to die in any normal combat outside of weird freak occurances due to your combined defense rolls, the best replacement for that would be to make sure Sams got crazy special moves that made fights way easier for them rather than them merely just having a few dice on everyone else. It just wasn't executed well at all, and execution is kinda way more important than merely having a good idea.

I wonder if Edge went through a variation like that at some point but then everything got squashed down to a smaller numerical range and so we had to end up at "gain or lose 1 Edge", which just seems so... crude.

I am willing to bet money... actually no I need that stuff... on it working like this, but then they changed it because they realized the math didn't work out and resulted in eating a single attack or firing a single bullet gave you like 10 edge on some PCs and they didn't know how to or want to change things so that didn't happen or was ok (like edge being a resource you spend in fistfulls, like 10 edge being useful but not 'zomg OP' tier).

This is still very possible. It's not until professional rating 3+ that opposition begins getting attack dice pools above 6. If we're talking average gangers, as defined by the CRB, a well-built frontliner will still be able to mow through groups of them.

The issue here is those NPCs are not dangerous enough for any PC. Any NPC really dangerous enough to threaten players is also too dangerous for the Samurai. In essence, PC combat potential is now crazy flat, which is a problem because specialist combat enhancing 'ware past the 1-2 ess investment most mundanes are going to make got worse and is still priced assuming it works as a PC role, which it no longer does.

Samurai basically don't exist this edition. The most iconic role in SR just vanished in a puff of edge.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

...
But that aside, much like how it irks you when folks claim armor does nothing, it irks me how the other side claims how vital it is. It's really not. Cold hard math doesn't lie, and it is trivial difficulty to acquire a Defense Rating without worn armor that renders Attack Ratings less than 15 from being able to acquire edge against you. I would also very much enjoy that side admitting that, on some builds (and those builds being the characters that should be getting the most use out of it, not the least), armor is in fact useless - because it is.
...

Well, there's an important distinction between redundancy and uselessness. Perhaps that's too pedantic for us to agree that the distinction is meaningful, though.

That´s why I think that there also should be more than 3 outcomes (A gets Edge, B gets Edge, no one gets Edge) resulting from the AR-DR comparison.

I wonder if this is an artefact of the two-Edge-per-Turn cap. Imagine if Edge had no cap (with a corresponding adjustment to the cost of the higher Edge uses to keep things sane.) Now you could award, say, 1 point of Edge for every 3 points difference between AR and DR, or similar; now it starts to feel more meaningful and weighty and impactful.

I wonder if Edge went through a variation like that at some point but then everything got squashed down to a smaller numerical range and so we had to end up at "gain or lose 1 Edge", which just seems so... crude.

I wasn't involved with the writing or the playtest so I don't know, but it's an interesting thought. I suppose it's possible the path tread that ground, sure.

[dezmont]

Well, there's an important distinction between redundancy and uselessness. Perhaps that's too pedantic for us to agree that the distinction is meaningful, though.

I am that pedantic. By most standards of redundancy that isn't redundant. As in, it is not a failsafe, or extra cushon, or anything beneficial. Having a 'backup' isn't always a virtue or good design (From a player's perspective) if it will never have value. Ex: You would never ever build a PC with two implanted guns of the same type in SR5 because that 'redundancy' adds no value. There isn't a scenario where the second would be useful if the first isn't.

Likewise, as is, unless you are getting attacked by a grunt group with 4 flippin Barret 50 Cals you will never ever benefit from going above an armored jacket on a soak PC. Realistically even that is overkill, and if that is cropping up your GM just wants to rocks fall ya anyway. Like, yes, there are super duper specific edge cases where you can force armor to be useful for such a PC, but that doesn't a good design make.

Not that I am saying one should nerf combat PCs more. It just is funny how much their nominal upsides do not matter.