[penllawen]

That's not RAW, though. While it might be fine to houserule that, RAW specifically states Spirits do not gain Edge. So I'll stick to that in this context.

We've had a debate on Edge for non-Spirits, and while general consensus is 'seems fair for them to gain Edge due to game balance purposes', the bigger question is 'how do they use it'. I advocate 'spend at once'.

Speaking of; if Spirits do not gain edge, should hosts and/or IC do so?

And drones, too (which was covered at length here in a thread a couple of weeks back.) Nobody knows. The CRB has a worked example where two drones fire at each other, and AR/DR values are compared, but it is silent on where the Edge would go were any earned. Given the conceptual similarities between drones and spirits as semi-PC-controlled pets, it seems unlikely they should get fundamentally different rules about Edge, but that is the implication.

[ZeroSum]

My bad, missed that part.

So RAW, no defined rule for non-spirit NPCs, up to GM until such a time as Errata/FAQ clarifies. That about sum it up?

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

By RAW drones/hosts/IC/sprites have no exceptions to the rules about Edge spending/Edge gaining.  Spirits, on the other hand, do.

[ZeroSum]

That's perfect, thank you.

So, back to AR vs DR for Matrix?

[Caislean]

Oh, sorry, no, not like that. I mean: she would throw out Data Spikes against commlinks or other low-DR targets to earn cheap Edge, then use that Edge for a physical Anticipate attack with dual-wield SMGs. Mixing Edge gain and use across "worlds" (ie. meat / matrix / magic) makes very little narrative sense that I can see, but it's legal, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A game master could well rule that this is an attempt to game the system and not grant edge, heck it's not much different than the "pointing a gun at a passerby" to gain edge in the example on page 46. 

It could also be argued that the bonus edge from matrix actions doesn't leave the matrix since it states it goes away when you leave a host or leave the matrix.   Still it could replenish the characters edge to their full stat again.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Well it can be easier to generate edge via matrix actions than by combat actions, and since edge is fungible edge gained via hacking can be spent on non-matrix actions... but there's 2 important caveats on that.

1) general rule about preventing edge abuse is still in play. I.E. if you're only/mainly doing it to gain edge, the GM is empowered and encouraged to withhold the Edge point(s).

2) remember your edge flushes when you end a matrix session. You can freely spend Edge gained via matrix actions on physical actions... IF you're in AR. And you can't hoard it for the future.

Edit: TL;DR.. slipped by caislean

[penllawen]

Oh, sorry, no, not like that. I mean: she would throw out Data Spikes against commlinks or other low-DR targets to earn cheap Edge, then use that Edge for a physical Anticipate attack with dual-wield SMGs. Mixing Edge gain and use across "worlds" (ie. meat / matrix / magic) makes very little narrative sense that I can see, but it's legal, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A game master could well rule that this is an attempt to game the system and not grant edge, heck it's not much different than the "pointing a gun at a passerby" to gain edge in the example on page 46. 

Why is it Edge abuse to attempt to hack your opponent's gear during combat? That's exactly what deckers are supposed to do.

It could also be argued that the bonus edge from matrix actions doesn't leave the matrix since it states it goes away when you leave a host or leave the matrix.   Still it could replenish the characters edge to their full stat again.

The decker would work entirely in AR, and so never be leaving/entering the Matrix.

Alternatively, if you want to replenish Edge when leaving or entering VR, you've just opened the door to a much worse exploit. Generate a character with high natural Edge and switch in and out of VR to regenerate it all.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Why is it Edge abuse to attempt to hack your opponent's gear during combat? That's exactly what deckers are supposed to do.

Like the line between Art and Porn: it's inherently subjective. Context matters.  However in the case of "doing what deckers are supposed to do" and "doing it primarily for the Edge", there's only one opinion that matters on the subjective difference between the two: That table's GM's opinion.

[penllawen]

Why is it Edge abuse to attempt to hack your opponent's gear during combat? That's exactly what deckers are supposed to do.

Like the line between Art and Porn: it's inherently subjective. Context matters.  However in the case of "doing what deckers are supposed to do" and "doing it just to gain Edge", there's only one opinion that matters on the subjective difference between the two: That table's GM's opinion.

luv 2 play a collaborative game mediated by rules and not GMs' whims!

What you're saying is I could sit down at a convention table and say "I dataspike the goon's commlink" and the GM looks at me and says "yeah you're not getting Edge for that coz I don't trust your motivations for taking that action." And that's good, is it?

Edit to add -- I don't see any non-hostile / de-escalating way for GMs to communicate a decision that boils down to "you're not getting Edge because I think you're lying." It's a really uncomfortable dynamic.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Why is it Edge abuse to attempt to hack your opponent's gear during combat? That's exactly what deckers are supposed to do.

Like the line between Art and Porn: it's inherently subjective. Context matters.  However in the case of "doing what deckers are supposed to do" and "doing it just to gain Edge", there's only one opinion that matters on the subjective difference between the two: That table's GM's opinion.

luv 2 play a collaborative game mediated by rules and not GMs' whims!

What you're saying is I could sit down at a convention table and say "I dataspike the goon's commlink" and the GM looks at me and says "yeah you're not getting Edge for that coz I don't trust your motivations for taking that action." And that's good, is it?

Well, like I said context matters.  Are you data spiking a living goon's commlink before or right at the onset of an ambush? So that he can't call for help or sound an alarm?  I'd like to think that a convention GM would not deny you the edge.  OTOH, are you data spiking a dead goon's commlink?  Hard to argue that you're NOT just doing it for the edge.  Yeah, I'd probably deny you the edge if I were that GM.  Unless of course there were additional extenuating circumstances. 

Context matters.  Rather than giving rules for what does and does not invalidate Edge gains, the rule is just "GM discretion."  Can you propose a better rule?

[ZeroSum]

As I understand it, you only replenish Edge up to your rank as per the following:

Characters start a gaming session with Edge points equal to their Edge rank.

The book states that the only way to gain edge you have to earn it, and that:
In the session,

Edge can be carried over and accumulated up to a limit of 7, including the Edge provided by the character’s Edge attribute. Any Edge garnered over your base attribute goes away when you complete any ongoing confrontation; this includes combat, hacking, social persuasion, and any situation where bonus Edge might be accumulated. If, at the end of the confrontation, your current Edge points are less than your Edge attribute, you stay at the lower level.

So if I'm hacking a bunch of devices as legwork, at the end of the hacking "confrontation" excess Edge beyond my rank is lost, but Edge up to my base attribute remains". There is no rule against using said edge in Combat, so penllawen's example is perfectly valid.

Even going into VR for a turn or two during combat to interrupt your foes (Spoof Command with Fork works wonders here) will likely boost your edge (see above on AR vs DR and Analytical Mind), to the point where when you leave VR but are still in combat you would retain all edge gained up to a max of 7, and would be free to use it for Anticipation as normal, for example.

This isn't exploiting the Edge mechanic; this is using the Hacker's abilities to directly influence combat through the Matrix, and the side effect is a pretty aggressive rate of Edge gain that is RAW. No interpretation needed.

The core of this issue, to my mind, is how exceedingly easy it is for deckers to earn Edge when fighting devices that are not protected by a dedicated, specialized decker or host. The GMs only real option is to throw in an NPC decker to protect the NPC gear, which again, we don't really know if should be common or not because the Matrix chapter doesn't really tell us. We have good examples of magical and physical security by security zone, but not a lot to go on as far as Matrix security.

Definitely one for a Matrix supplement to elaborate on; it once again comes down to individual interpretation of how the Matrix functions at a core, system/world level.

[penllawen]

Yeah, I'd probably deny you the edge if I were that GM.  Unless of course there were additional extenuating circumstances.

Well, I'm happy I don't play at your table, then.

Context matters.  Rather than giving rules for what does and does not invalidate Edge gains, the rule is just "GM discretion."  Can you propose a better rule?

No. Because 6e's Edge system is broken all the way down.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Yeah, I'd probably deny you the edge if I were that GM.  Unless of course there were additional extenuating circumstances.

Well, I'm happy I don't play at your table, then.

Really? You think you should gain edge from, for example, shooting at random pedestrians?  Dataspiking scene-irrelevant devices sounds very much like the same thing to me.

[Hobbes]

If you're hacking the environment to give the team tactical advantages or to brick guns or cybereyes or something that matters, Edge away.  You bricked the Coffee machine in the middle of a firefight?  Uh... k.

All for Hackers blending Matrix Actions and Meatspace actions via AR.  Quite literally a stated mechanical objective for 5E and presumably 6E.  But at least Dataspike or Control Device something that matters.  Or just use a Drone and trigger Analytical Mind by shooting stuff with Logic plus Engineering.  So many ways to trigger Analytical Mind in a meaningful way.   

[Ghost Rigger]

Context matters.  Rather than giving rules for what does and does not invalidate Edge gains, the rule is just "GM discretion."  Can you propose a better rule?

Replace all instances of "gain edge" with "gain extra dice on the task that you are doing right now", "ignore these select penalties on the task that you are doing right now" or "lower the TN of the task that you are doing right now".

Really? You think you should gain edge from, for example, shooting at random pedestrians?  Dataspiking scene-irrelevant devices sounds very much like the same thing to me.

Streetsams being out-of-control psychopaths who kill random bystanders for no discernible reason is "iconic", and as we all know 6e is all about being "iconic".