[SteakAndSpirits]

Having a hard time understanding the appeal of 6E APDS ammo -- it seems objectively worse than standard ammo, as +2 AR may contribute to receiving a point of edge, but at a cost of -1 DV, which takes on average 3 dice to recover.

In fact, it actually even appears that APDS is worse, not better, at breaking through structures since those are keyed to DV (which is penalized by APDS) not AR.

Somewhat confused -- am I missing anything?

Thanks!

-s&s

[Michael Chandra]

The better odds at Edge mean better chances to hit. Though houserules buffing it against Hardened Armor and Barriers make sense.

[SteakAndSpirits]

Yep -- more edge may potentially translate into more accuracy, if the +2 pushes a character into the threshold where they receive an additional point of edge.

Seems like a significant functional departure from APDS in prior editions, where APDS solved armor penetration problems not accuracy problems.

-s&s

[Michael Chandra]

One of my ideas was to cancel 2 autohits of hardened armor. But due to some escalating debates I'm not writing things up for now.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Having APDS cancel 2 levels of Hardened Armor is a pretty slick idea.

[SteakAndSpirits]

I like that idea too.  I'm still in the "digest and synthesize" phase of reviewing the rules, though.  Trying to keep an open mind and make sure I understand everything before considering any house rules.

Anyway -- thanks for the reply/clarification. 

-s&s

[Finstersang]

OR - wild idea, I know  - the errata folks get the necessary rites and blessings to fix this (as well as flechettes, imaging scopes, and other small mechanic goofups...)

Because the idea behind the bonus of APDS (+2 AR means it´s better against Armor, thus simulating armor penetration) looks fitting on a first glance, but it just doesn´t work out.

When should  a character want to pull out the APDS clip? Answer: If the target has (high) armor.

When would a character want to pull out the APDS clip, knowing the RAW? Answer: If the target´s DR happens to be either 2 below or 2 above your AR in the corresponding range - which you usally can´t reliably tell or control. Only then you can get some benefit that is somewhat able to even out the -1 Damage. If that point of Edge that you would get or deny doesn´t get lost anyways due to the Edge Cap, firing from cover, using a scope or not having snorted enough Novacoke to satisfy your addiction...

It´s a trap, fair and simple. Sure, it´s nothing that "breaks the game", but it´s an obviously flawed design that deserves to be recognized and treated as such instead of letting it spawn countless houserules.   

That being said: Xenon made a very good list about this here (and I also gave my two cents about this). Adding an interaction with HA is one of the things most people seem to agree on.   

(BTW: Chandra, are you mad at me that I called you looked like I might have called you a "6th Edition apologist"? Because seriously, that was never my intention  Also, I kinda am one myself - at least for the system as whole, not individual issues like this.)

[Ghost Rigger]

So, let's get this straight:

• APDS increases AR by 2 while decreasing your actual DV by 1
• DV does not affect AR, so it's still a net 2 AR increase
• I mean, if DV did affect AR, then it would be only a 1 net AR increase
• and if that were the case, explosive ammo would provide a net 1 AR increase while also providing +1 DR
• and that would mean that explosive ammo was unquestionably and objectively better than APDS
• although if DV didn't affect AR, that would still make explosive ammo better than APDS, because who gives who gives a shit about edge anyways? No one cares about that subsystem, and DV is all that matters in the end
• and surely, the devs would not be so incompetent as to make explosive ammo so much better than APDS when they were more or less equal in the previous edition
• right?
• RIGHT?!

Copy-pasting the ammo stats from 5e would've been better than what we have now in 6e.

[Michael Chandra]

I like that idea too.  I'm still in the "digest and synthesize" phase of reviewing the rules, though.  Trying to keep an open mind and make sure I understand everything before considering any house rules.

Anyway -- thanks for the reply/clarification. 

-s&s

Another idea would be to reduce the opponent's defense boost with max 4 (downside: more complicated math). This makes it weak against low-armor targets, but strong against high-armor targets and would automatically result in reducing 2 (if HA R/2 = autohits) autohits of Hardened Armor. But yeah, still balancing things out and feeling how things play out.

Edit: Of course the GM could write down 2 DRs.

[FastJack]

If you cannot discuss rules and game development without attacking forum posters or game developers, we will lock the thread and warn the offending parties

[Finstersang]

I like that idea too.  I'm still in the "digest and synthesize" phase of reviewing the rules, though.  Trying to keep an open mind and make sure I understand everything before considering any house rules.

Anyway -- thanks for the reply/clarification. 

-s&s

Another idea would be to reduce the opponent's defense boost with max 4 (downside: more complicated math). This makes it weak against low-armor targets, but strong against high-armor targets and would automatically result in reducing 2 (if HA R/2 = autohits) autohits of Hardened Armor. But yeah, still balancing things out and feeling how things play out.

Edit: Of course the GM could write down 2 DRs.

Whith the DV reduction still in place, I´d still opt for a proportional decrease, i.e. only half of the Armor Score applies. This has the advantage that it´s always clear as day that APDS is the better choice the better the target is armored.

Not sure about Hardened Armor, though. Might be too strong to cut that in half as well, but you´ll have to keep in mind that it´s specialized Ammo and a less-than-optimal choice against many targets. Also, Explosive Ammo as the top-choice still exists, which has only two Drawbacks to the Damage increase: It can´t really be used for stealthy kills[1] and it makes your gun explode on a critical glitch. And the latter might even be a hidden advantage if your GM foolishly uses the Glitch Suggestion table as a benchmark 

[1] While it´s not written down, I´d say it´s common sense that you can only silence the shot and not the impact. Nothing funnier than Runners with Explosive Ammo and Silencers 

[markelphoenix]

The only major downside to explosive ammo is crit glitch. Gun go boom and you take the DV +1 of your weapon.

[Shinobi Killfist]

The only major downside to explosive ammo is crit glitch. Gun go boom and you take the DV +1 of your weapon.

 Not the ammo for the part time shooter I guess.

[markelphoenix]

The only major downside to explosive ammo is crit glitch. Gun go boom and you take the DV +1 of your weapon.

 Not the ammo for the part time shooter I guess.

Yeah...I mean, either have some Edge if your Firearms pool isn't great, buy your hits and play it uber safe, or trust in the RNG gods.

[Marcus]

The better odds at Edge mean better chances to hit. Though houserules buffing it against Hardened Armor and Barriers make sense.

So let just take moment consider how very convoluted that first statement is. You're raising a value that has no direct effect on hit chance, to compare said value to see if it exceeds another value with a large threshold attached, to see if you could potentially gain a point of edge. Then that point of edge could possibly be spent (assuming you hadn't already hit edge limit, ether in use or in capacity), too maybe increase you're character's chance to hit. That's a lot of points of failure.  If it has to go through 4+ possible points of failure it's astonishing that such a concept can be taken seriously. If all that seems like it's worth a -1 DV in a system where damage is already considerably lower, then I don't know what to tell you.

In short S&S you didn't miss anything. Should you actually get 1 edge, it's never going to equal 3 dice to hit.

The house rule thing is just too much. When they get around to uploading the errata they are going to need to add bunch blank pages to the CRB so GMs can record all the house rules they have to implement to fix basic issues in 6e. 6e has become the do it yourself Shadowrun edition.