[Typhus]

the CRB armor basically only covers light armor ... the heaviest thing you can get is FBA, which is still light armor in the big scheme of things and the only advantage it provides is full coverage

So, for all those trying to say that "armor doesn't matter", it sounds like the answer is more "armor's effect is baked in to the damage codes, however the system is abstracted to the degree that the distinction between armor types is not nearly as relevant as in prior editions". IOW, it's there, but much less directly noticeable -- its only reflected in the DR, which means it isn't felt 100% of the time.  Fair statement?

Also, would that mean, if we attack an unarmored target, should we then get a damage bonus?  If I attack a critter, it (usually) lacks armor.  Shouldn't that be a factor in the base DV at that point?  They didn't seem to call that out in the devil rat fight on the SCN live play, so it wasn't my impression that was the case.

[Banshee]

the CRB armor basically only covers light armor ... the heaviest thing you can get is FBA, which is still light armor in the big scheme of things and the only advantage it provides is full coverage

So, for all those trying to say that "armor doesn't matter", it sounds like the answer is more "armor's effect is baked in to the damage codes, however the system is abstracted to the degree that the distinction between armor types is not nearly as relevant as in prior editions". IOW, it's there, but much less directly noticeable -- its only reflected in the DR, which means it isn't felt 100% of the time.  Fair statement?

Also, would that mean, if we attack an unarmored target, should we then get a damage bonus?  If I attack a critter, it (usually) lacks armor.  Shouldn't that be a factor in the base DV at that point?  They didn't seem to call that out in the devil rat fight on the SCN live play, so it wasn't my impression that was the case.

mostly yes, but some no too ... armor is still a factor and yes it is more abstract and not 'felt' ... (and that was the core of my argument when we were going through development on it ... at the very least people need to feel like armor is doing something) ... but yes it is basically baked into the revised damage codes and no there is nothing to offset not having armor, the basic combat system assumes everyone (or thing) has armor of some kind on the damage side .. the only benefit you have as an attacker going up against an unarmored defender is the most likely advantage you will have in generating edge

[Typhus]

Thanks, that's useful info to have.  I think I have what I was looking for from this thread.  Cheers!

[Beta]

I’ve been interested in this thread.  My take-away is that the mechanic ) was built to play reasonably in the most typical cases, and b) as known so far doesn’t scale well to corner cases.  I’m a bit sad because this was one of the weaknesses of the target-number-adjusting mechanic used in SR 1-3; it played in a pretty cool way in the middle, but became silly once you went out any distance.  I jumped from 2nd edition to 5th and the greater linearity of mechanics was one of the things that I really appreciated. (they are by no means perfect as things scale, but they hold up much better than the earlier system did).

I suspect I’ll put some house rules around this mechanic for the more extreme cases, if there is not already more coverage in the CRB.  I’ll hold off speculating until I’ve read and absorbed the full rules and the numbers.

[tenchi2a]

This info kind of disheartens me even more then I already was about the game.
I have been constantly trying to convince my table that the writers where not trying to turn SR into D&D and this seems to prove my players right.
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. 
So while it has was being claimed that this was all for streamlining in truth it was all for dumbing down as much as possible and the only reason we have anything approaching older version is they couldn't get the more dumb down version to work.   

[dezmont]

The real issue is that this REALLY hurts soak tanks. Not because soak tanks got better armor than other people, they didn't so the nominal gap in preformance is the same, but soak tanking depends a lot on big pools to get a standard result. In the context of already having 18 dice you can post edge in 5e a +9 to armor from ortho and lacing is massive, while 9 soak from a base soak of 4 and no post-soak re-roll isn't nearly as effective, even when you factor DV dropped.

amurai WILL take damage from attacks based on these new DVs, unless they are dodge samurai in a way that is hard for them to force prevent, unless things we don't know about come to light. Combined with the fact the new legality system seems to be pushing the value of 'social stealth' compatible gear up, and the fact that the value of big guns is going down to sorta soft revert to 4e autofire (though unarguably less insane than 4e autofire, as, you know, you can miss now and the hit rate penalty is baked in which actually does help make the dice a samurai can pull more useful) and its really questionable what the big value add a samurai brings to the team.

Like, yes, they are still better at resisting damage than other people, but Samurai is getting more power shunted to their offensive capability which never really was the draw (as at least in 5e it was pretty easy to one shot kill if you wanted too, offense was cheap, defense was expensive, even with old armor, so specializing in that is what really made a PC a combat PC rather than a face with smartlink and toner) and with the push for even more condensed social skills (And social skills were already REALLY cheap) and with possibly every PC caring about legality now even if they are a physical stealth PC, the Samurai's actual functionality on a run is coming into more and more question the more info we get.

Like I don't super care about the realism argument (though the non-intuitive argument is good. I think putting 1-3 soak on all armors would have been a good way to make them statistically not significant while still making it easier to wrap your head around how FBA protects you), but the role balance always assumed pretty insane combat supremacy in Samurai and unless their toys got much cheaper and easier to fit in (like big price and essence reductions to soak 'ware and 'wired, so that samurai hybridize on par with faces) this may be the edition where Samurai are the bottom of the heap, and I don't think that is going to be good for the game's accessibility.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Just picking on one thing as I am lazy. I actually think this game will push for big guns more than 5e. One major action killing will be hard with a pistol in 6e. But totally possible with an assault rifle.

In 5e pistols could fairly easily one shot people and bigger guns were either over kill or a buffer for rough enemies.

Due to this I think people had more mechanical freedom to pick a weapon that fit their characters style where as in 6e you are more pressed for pure effectiveness. One action kills are a huge effectiveness change since dead people don’t shoot back. That being said with how tasers look the big gun might be a taser.

[moes1980]

Well, from running the starter set adventure, all I can say is that it worked really well, mainly because the damage values are much lower.

For example, an Ares Predator now has DV4, instead of DV8. So in our session, if a ganger tried to shoot the troll samurai, they typically had 7 dice vs. his ten (I think it was ten). If the ganger managed a hit, it was usually only with one or two net hits. In the old game, that would be 9 or 10 damage to soak. With condition tracks of about 12 you better have a lot of soak dice! But now it is only 5 or 6 damage to soak. The troll samurai had something like 8 or 10 soak dice (I don't remember off the top of my head). So mostly he was missed, and when he was hit, he could reduce the damage 2 or 3 points before spending edge. If he gets edge from DR, that also helps. It happened more than once where the troll was able to soak all damage from low powered gangers. I know it was said before that damage was scaled down, but it has been about cut in half! The result is less dice rolling and faster action.

While running the gangers, I also found it much more easy to use the Edge system. If an enemy for some reason has an edge while being shot at (from DR or something else) I can just reroll one of my dice real quick. Did I get two edge? I almost always have a 4 in my pool that I can turn into a hit. This was much smoother than having to constantly figure different NPC soak pool and roll them. Also, the two edge per turn cap is nice, it keeps people from trying to argue for tons of edge. Basically, I ran it as one chance to get edge from environment/gear, one chance to get edge from AR vs DR.

I don't really know how else to describe it. The only thing I really missed was the idea that sometimes getting shot might only cause stun damage if the DV wasn't higher than your armor. I wonder if this will be a thing in the full rules. I could almost see something similar, just using the DR value as the threshold. Other than that, I really like the system so far.

[Finstersang]

Also, the two edge per turn cap is nice, it keeps people from trying to argue for tons of edge. Basically, I ran it as one chance to get edge from environment/gear, one chance to get edge from AR vs DR.

Yeah, too bad that it´s - be it on purpose or by accident - written as two per round 

Two per (individual) turn absolutely makes sense, though. At least from a gameplay perspective.

I don't really know how else to describe it. The only thing I really missed was the idea that sometimes getting shot might only cause stun damage if the DV wasn't higher than your armor. I wonder if this will be a thing in the full rules. I could almost see something similar, just using the DR value as the threshold. Other than that, I really like the system so far.

I really resented this rule in SR4 and 5. Not the general idea, though, but because it tended to make "tanky" targets even easier to bring down, since Stun damage couldn´t be properly healed and physical damage tracks were often longer then the Stun track. Also, armor could be easily be stacked so high that you rarely have to fear lethal damage unless someone whips out a Sniper Rifle with APDS. SR5 firefights often were more like pillow fights: Nobody gets injured, but everyone is tired afterwards   I houseruled this to into splitting the damage between the Stun and the Physical track instead of a full conversion, which helped a lot.

However, while this didn´t really work out in the previous 2 Editions because of balancing issues, it probably works a lot better in SR6 if implemented right. I wouldn´t base it on Attack/Defense ratings, because there are too many other factors coming into play that don´t really reflect the fact that it´s your armor that converts bullet holes into bruises. Instead, I´d base it on the actual Damage Code (+ Net Hits) and the actual Armor Score - so, pretty much like in the previous Editions. In SR6, this would work out nicely, since the Damage Codes and Armor Codes are lower, more evened out and more dependent on the Attackers net hits. And also, you can finally heal Stun damage in SR6.

[FastJack]

Two per (individual) turn absolutely makes sense, though. At least from a gameplay perspective.

I haven't had my coffee yet, so I trying not to sound dense on this, but I'm still not getting the argument for this. Are you saying that you'd rather be awarded edge to player every turn? That sounds horrendous to me, since players are going to get edge over most grunt NPCs in most encounters. So, if the player goes first, here's Edge for having a hire AR and better tactics. Then the NPC goes, granting Edge to the player for having better DR. Then the next NPC goes, granting more edge. In a player versus 3 Grunt scenario (i.e., the Sam versus three low-level gangers), that would easily wind up giving the Sam at least four, possibly all seven, Edge in a single round.

Again, I apologize if I'm sounding dense on this, literally the first thing I'm typing this morning and I'd like to understand the argument better.

[Carmody]

One of the issues raised about Edge being caped per round is that once you have gain your 2 Edge of the round, nothing else matters: armor? I do not care I already maxed my Edge for the round, I can go and fight in swimsuit it does not change anything!

[Michael Chandra]

Two per (individual) turn absolutely makes sense, though. At least from a gameplay perspective.

I haven't had my coffee yet, so I trying not to sound dense on this, but I'm still not getting the argument for this. Are you saying that you'd rather be awarded edge to player every turn? That sounds horrendous to me, since players are going to get edge over most grunt NPCs in most encounters. So, if the player goes first, here's Edge for having a hire AR and better tactics. Then the NPC goes, granting Edge to the player for having better DR. Then the next NPC goes, granting more edge. In a player versus 3 Grunt scenario (i.e., the Sam versus three low-level gangers), that would easily wind up giving the Sam at least four, possibly all seven, Edge in a single round.

Again, I apologize if I'm sounding dense on this, literally the first thing I'm typing this morning and I'd like to understand the argument better.

A GM can group grunts and have them fire once per group, this gives an AR and dice bonus to the single attack depending on the group-size. Saves this kind of headache as well as time.

[Finstersang]

Two per (individual) turn absolutely makes sense, though. At least from a gameplay perspective.

I haven't had my coffee yet, so I trying not to sound dense on this, but I'm still not getting the argument for this. Are you saying that you'd rather be awarded edge to player every turn? That sounds horrendous to me, since players are going to get edge over most grunt NPCs in most encounters. So, if the player goes first, here's Edge for having a hire AR and better tactics. Then the NPC goes, granting Edge to the player for having better DR. Then the next NPC goes, granting more edge. In a player versus 3 Grunt scenario (i.e., the Sam versus three low-level gangers), that would easily wind up giving the Sam at least four, possibly all seven, Edge in a single round.

Again, I apologize if I'm sounding dense on this, literally the first thing I'm typing this morning and I'd like to understand the argument better.

You´re not sounding dense. Well, maybe just a little bit 

In fact, you´re bringing up pretty much the only (semi-)valid concern about the "per turn"-ruling: It could lead to a scenario where tanky characters get rewarded for letting themselfes getting shot at a lot. That would advocate a kind of "bait-and-punish"-playstyle for Tanky McTrollface: Because you often won´t need to use your Edge on your defense/soak rolls, you can afford to put it aside for your own counterattacks.

But consider this:

• Your example is even better at demonstrating what´s bad about the "per round"-rule: In your scenario, Edge gain would be cut off right after 2 Edge, which may happen right with the first attack of the ganger or even on the samurais own turn. And once this happens, all these factors that would put the gangers at a disadvantage or put the Sammie at an advantage suddenly don´t matter any more, because pretty much all of them are reflected by granting Edge now. This includes Armor, Range, Cover, Firing Modes/Recoil, Lighting/Visibility and probably a whole bunch of other factors and perks we have yet to hear about. How on earth is this better? It´s pretty much a limit on how many things "count" per round. It´s a kind of realism filter.
• What´s even so bad about your scenario after all? "Bait and punish" is a fun tactic. True, it´s got a bit of a "cheesy Action Movie" vibe to it, but unlike previous incarnations of "Tanks" in SR, there´s an actual risk involved in this playstyle, especially if you decide to safe your Edge for your own actions (Hell, that even fits the new Motto of "Risk it all!" ). If I have to throw realism out of the window, I´d rather do it this way than by pretty much limiting the amount of depth per combat round.
• If the GM is fed up with this "abuse" of the Edge machanic, (s)he can simply use grunt rules to attack the Streetsam. That would limit the amount of Edge he can generate with this trick, and might even deny the Edge gain from the AR-DR comparison.

If you´re now still convinced that there should be a per-round-cap on Edge gain, you may want to consider another houserule/fix/re-interpretation of the 2-Edge-per-round-limit that´s floating around: Yes, there is a limit per round, but Edge that is spend right on the Action that helped you earn it, doesn´t count towards it. In other words, only the amount of Edge that can be saved up for later is limited. No Edge would be truly lost, but it would force the tanky Samurai to use most of the Edge generated by getting attacked on the actual Defense/Soak tests.

So let´s compare these 3 different versions of Edge Limiting:

• You can get max. 2 Edge per round (currently RAW, at least in the QSR)
• You can get max. 2 Edge per turn
• You can save up max. 2 Edge per round for later.

#3 is more realistic, but #2 is a bit easier to explain and monitor, and I actually like the idea of that "Bait and punish"-Playstyle. I´d still prefer option #2 over #3, but only by a small margin.

But #1: Sorry, that´s just easily the worst of the three: It´s neither realistic, nor fun, nor easy to monitor in a fight with many participants. I´d rather play with no limits at all than with this.

OK, just so we are 100% clear here: By ROUND, I mean the whole Intervall of ca. 3 Second in which everyone acts according to their Initiative Scores. By TURN, I mean the individual turn of a player or NPC, which consists of different Minor and Major Actions.

Instead of TURN, I might have also called it INITIATIVE PASS. But then I´d be 100% sure that the very next post would be someone helpfully pointing out that "ACKCHYUALLY, there are no Initiative Passes in 6th Edition anymore, because the system is totally different now", followed by 2D6 posts of raging and raving about the new action economy.

[Beta]

So let´s compare these 3 different versions of Edge Limiting:

• You can get max. 2 Edge per round (currently RAW, at least in the QSR)
• You can get max. 2 Edge per turn
• You can save up max. 2 Edge per round for later.

#3 is more realistic, but #2 is a bit easier to explain and monitor, and I actually like the idea of that "Bait and punish"-Playstyle. I´d still prefer option #2 over #3, but only by a small margin.

Although I have had coffee I may also be a little dense this morning.  Or possibly it is from not having read the QSR yet so I'm off on SR6 terminology.  But I'm really not sure what the difference is between a round and a turn?  In SR5 there were multiple initiative passes, but in SR6 everyone gets 1 major and some minor actions per turn, right?  (with the possibility of turning 4 minors into 1 major, and so getting a second attack).  So there are not multiple passes ... and I just don't get what else the round and turn differentiation could mean?

[Michael Chandra]

I'm guessing the meaning here would be 'per entity's turn'. So you have a player's turn, and the combat round. If I fire twice at you, you can only get 2 Edge, but if the next guy then fires at you, under version 2 you'd be able to get more Edge.