[GuardDuty]

the way Edge works in 6we is not THAT dissimilar from Combat Pool in those earlier editions.

...this is just not a true statement, man.  A much more accurate way of saying this is that Edge and Combat Pool have almost nothing in common.  One is a purchased statistic, one is derived.  One respawned in full every combat turn, one has to be earned back incrementally.

Combat Pool's only function was to add dice to your combat related tests.  Edge is not restricted to combat skills, or even your own dice.  Edge can even cause typical game mechanics to function differently.

Edge is a translation of Karma Pool into a statistic, not Combat Pool.

denying a point of edge is in the end more or less the same thing (2 in 3 chance) as reducing the damage you would have taken by 1 box.

I have not read 6e, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that edge had a variety of uses (maneuvers and whatnot), not just re-rolling dice.  If so, you can't possibly equate these two things as the same, because there is no way of knowing how that edge would be used.

6we's gun DVs are on par with what they were in 1e, 2e, 3e, AND 4e

This is another deceptive statement, because it completely ignores the concept of staging damage up and the differences in condition monitors.  The base damage for an Ares Predator may have been 3 boxes (M damage level) in 2e and 3e, but with 2 net successes that was up to 6 and 4 net successes that was up to 10.  Percentage-wise, that was 30%, 60%, and 100% of your condition monitor no matter who you are.  As I understand it, the least number of boxes on a condition monitor in 6e is 9, and going up to whatever a troll can get to.  4 net hits would get that Ares Predator up to 7 boxes of damage, right?  Unless I'm missing something, that's a world of difference.  That can't even take out the sickliest person in the world.  Not only that, but the wound modifiers you inflicted in 2e and 3e scaled more quickly as well.  Comparing base DV in a vacuum is not an honest way to assess if gun damage is on par with previous editions.

[penllawen]

I have not read 6e, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that edge had a variety of uses (maneuvers and whatnot), not just re-rolling dice.  If so, you can't possibly equate these two things as the same, because there is no way of knowing how that edge would be used.

You are correct.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I have not read 6e, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that edge had a variety of uses (maneuvers and whatnot), not just re-rolling dice.  If so, you can't possibly equate these two things as the same, because there is no way of knowing how that edge would be used.

You are correct.

But you can, imo, fairly presume that any edge you denied to your opponent is edge that would have been used against you, had you not been wearing armor. And whatever use that was (negating one of your hits, that edge filling out the cost for an edge action like shank, etc), it not happening because you wore armor is a GOOD thing.  It's an indirect benefit rather than a direct benefit, but it's still a benefit.

And again, whether that's ENOUGH of a benefit is opinion.

[penllawen]

But you can, imo, fairly presume that any edge you denied to your opponent is edge that would have been used against you, had you not been wearing armor. And whatever use that was (negating one of your hits, that edge filling out the cost for an edge action like shank, etc), it not happening because you wore armor is a GOOD thing.  It's an indirect benefit rather than a direct benefit, but it's still a benefit.

And again, whether that's ENOUGH of a benefit is opinion.

So you concede that a Body 10 troll gets no value from armour in many situations, yes? As ARs of 14 or higher are rare and only come from high powered opponents. Such a troll might reasonably decide not to bother with armour when facing small-arms fire, as he will receive no benefit from it, directly or indirectly.

And you concede that a human with Body 4 and an armoured jacket gets almost no value from adding a helmet, yes? As there are only limited number of ways to get an AR of exactly 12. Such a character might play an entire campaign and never be attacked with AR 12, and hence never benefit from the helmet, directly or indirectly.

Incidentally, before you play the “you can get all values of AR via situational modifiers” card, be aware I am in the process of writing a python script to generate every possible combination of AR and DR in the 6e CRB, so I have data for this.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

But you can, imo, fairly presume that any edge you denied to your opponent is edge that would have been used against you, had you not been wearing armor. And whatever use that was (negating one of your hits, that edge filling out the cost for an edge action like shank, etc), it not happening because you wore armor is a GOOD thing.  It's an indirect benefit rather than a direct benefit, but it's still a benefit.

And again, whether that's ENOUGH of a benefit is opinion.

So you concede that a Body 10 troll gets no value from armour in many situations, yes? As ARs of 14 or higher are rare and only come from high powered opponents. Such a troll might reasonably decide not to bother with armour when facing small-arms fire, as he will receive no benefit from it, directly or indirectly.

Well, Body 10 is well off the scale for human potential. So a troll with 10 body is, literally, super-human.  We're talking about a brute that's got more in common with the likes of a grizzly bear than a regular person when it comes to what happens when you shoot it... yeah you might hurt it.  What's for sure is you'll piss it off!

Whether it's a grizzly bear or a troll shadowrunner, yeah your rent-a-cop or gutter punk isn't likely to have the AR to threaten that DR.  Let's presume they're wiedling stun batons or knives.  They'd earn edge vs unarmored humans... but the troll is so tough they don't earn edge!

However, you might say, your point is that armor was pointless for the troll in this case, yes?  Well, I flatly disagree.  Ok, it would be pointless if it was ONE rent-a-cop or ganger.  Just as a regular human doesn't need armor for protection from a toddler's attacks, right?  But once you have a grunt group of 5 of them, now you're talking about ARs high enough to gain edge vs an unarmored troll with 10 body.  This point segues into:

And you concede that a human with Body 4 and an armoured jacket gets almost no value from adding a helmet, yes? As there are only limited number of ways to get an AR of exactly 12. Such a character might play an entire campaign and never be attacked with AR 12, and hence never benefit from the helmet, directly or indirectly.

Incidentally, before you play the “you can get all values of AR via situational modifiers” card, be aware I am in the process of writing a python script to generate every possible combination of AR and DR in the 6e CRB, so I have data for this.

No, I absolutely don't concede that there are "sour spots" where increasing your DR nets no effective bonus because nothing has an AR exactly 4 higher than what you raised it to. Because I don't believe that AR 12 is such a niche number that it's rarely hit exactly. I'd be curious to see what your script says, because off the top of my head I can think of lots of ways to get AR 12.  Or any specific AR value (inside a reasonable range of course), to be honest.  Ammo types, firing modes, attacking in groups, and smartlinks all add to AR.  Frankly, AR10 + smartlink is something that's got to have at least half a dozen possible combinations.  And doubtlessly there'll be even more beyond the CRB gear as more books come out.  Also, now that STR adds to melee AR, STR 3 with a sword or combat axe is AR12.  Gangers with knives and 4 STR are AR 12.  I'm thinking it's you who will be surprised how many ways you can have AR 12, rather than me being surprised at how few.

[Trigger Lynx]

I'm not completely opposed to Attack Rating. It neatly lumps together situational and accessory modifiers into an easy-to-summarize statistic. Defense Rating is sort of janky though, for any number of reasons that have been brought up already. My main thought on the "armor doesn't do anything" debate is that DR (possiby) gaining an Edge for the defender or (possibly) preventing the attacker from gaining Edge is a superfluous mechanic (and I'm leaning towards that view for the new Edge system as a whole). The heavy focus on Edge gain/expenditure per round doesn't have nearly the significant impact overall that it warrants removing a damage mitigation mechanic for wearing armor. Whether it be something like "DR/2 autohits for soak" or "If DR is higher than AR, Physical damage becomes Stun damage" in addition to (or replacing) the ARvsDR Edge system, it would have made more sense, because you wear armor to stop bullets. The abstract concept of "your armor makes you lucky so in two or three turns you can reduce damage hits by 1" doesn't model the function of armor whatsoever, and it's strongly disliked by pretty much everyone that comments on it that doesn't have the "Associate/Employee of Catalyst Game Labs" tag under there name.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

... The abstract concept of "your armor makes you lucky so in two or three turns you can reduce damage hits by 1" doesn't model the function of armor whatsoever, and it's strongly disliked by pretty much everyone that comments on it that doesn't have the "Associate/Employee of Catalyst Game Labs" tag under there name.

If that actually described the extent of armor's benefit, then yes that'd be problematic.  But it isn't an accurate evaluation of the benefit of a point of edge.  When used to reroll dice, every 1 edge is 2/3 odds of a hit swinging in your favor, not 1/3 or 1/4 odds.

Consider what happens if you don't wear any armor.  "Armor doesn't do anything" suggests that there's no advantage to wearing armor versus not wearing armor.  Most ARs vs naked BOD will result in edge for the attacker.  That's an edge to force you to reroll one of your hits on the dodge, which means 2 in 3 chance the attacker gains an additional net hit on you.  If you just wore the armor and had enough DR to prevent the edge, that's 2 in 3 odds of you having 1 more hit than you would have otherwise had if you were naked.  That's 2/3 of a damage point.  And more than that, if the total hits were close enough it's 2/3 odds of keeping a miss a miss or turning a successful attack into a miss.

And of course that all is even without recognizing that armor preventing edge gain means that armor can potentially keep you from being Shanked, or Knockout Blow'd, or suffer other nasty Edge Actions by keeping your attacker from generating the necessary meta-currency to use the "powerup attack".

[Michael Chandra]

'I evade the attack without using the Edge so now I can use it on anything else.'

[Trigger Lynx]

I fear this debate has devolved into an "apples versus oranges" scenario. No matter how many times the proponents cite examples of the mechanic, the detractors aren't going to suddenly come around because it's not that the RAW is being misunderstood, it's that it is understood and it's being labeled as counter-intuitive and poorly thought out. I'm just going to make a quick statement, then be done with it (for the time being, at least).

Assume throughout the entirety of a combat scene that neither attacker or defender receive 4+ AR/DR for Edge gain and every attack resolution test is a tie.  There are ways that damage can be increased every attack (ammunition, augmentations, etc.) whereas there is no innate quality about armor that can reduce it. It doesn't matter if you're butt naked or if you're in full body armor because damage mitigation beyond a Body test is purely a function of a spendable resource. As written, the utility of armor is hoping that you "out luck" the attacker, which is just... bad. It's a bad mechanic. Defend it all you want, you know it's bad.

[Lormyr]

Anyone whom is unwilling or unable to admit that there are times when armor literally mechanically does nothing is either ignorant of the rules or a liar. Period. Now, is that a problem? That is a matter of opinion. For me it is, but for others they may not care. Example street sam:

Human
Body 11 (6 natural, 1 exceptional attribute, 4 bone density augmentation)
Dermal Deposits 1
Orthoskin 4

This character has a DR of 16 without wearing armor. No printed ranged weapon can gain edge from attacking him, and it would require a character with a strength of 9+ to gain edge swinging a katana.

Take the same build, but make it a troll with 10 body, and add two cyberarms with 4 armor each. That character has a DR of 27. Not even another troll with strength 14 and a katana (AR 24) can gain edge attacking that character.

Neither of those characters have armor, because wearing it would actually, literally do nothing mechanically for them. Before you argue "but armor mods!", that is not what we are talking about there.

Well, Body 10 is well off the scale for human potential. So a troll with 10 body is, literally, super-human.  We're talking about a brute that's got more in common with the likes of a grizzly bear than a regular person when it comes to what happens when you shoot it... yeah you might hurt it.  What's for sure is you'll piss it off!

I don't disagree with you that a Body of 10 is clearly superhuman, but I do disagree that because of that allowing armor on top of it to do nothing whatsoever is either logical or acceptable.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Well, for the third time now, preventing a potential edge gain IS doing something.

with regards to having a "naked" DR high enough it's already preventing edge gain... this is a case where armor is already irrelevant. When you have DR16 without armor on, many attacks are to you as a toddler's swings and bites are to a typical adult. 

And frankly what MORE do you want armor to do?  You're likely already taking little or no damage anyway with a soak pool that big.

One's opinion on armor in 6we has to ultimately weigh in on "Do you WANT people being reasonably likely to completely soak a hit?".  If your answer to that is "YES!", then I think that you're fighting against the current.  5e had the problem where when you're successfully attacked, it meant you likely soaked it all, or the hit was so titanic it one shotted you.  THAT was terrible game design to leave precious little happening in-between.  I'll unapologetically take "you usually suffer some minor-to-moderate damage every time you're hit" 10 times out of 10 over 4e/5e's paradigm.

[Lormyr]

Well, for the third time now, preventing a potential edge gain IS doing something.

1). That is a function of DR, not a function of armor. Armor can contribute to that happening, but there are instances where it does not. Though related, these are not the same things.

2). Neither of those examples even had armor, so clearly an item that is not present cannot do something.

A little nitpicky of me, but I find the distinctions important. I genuinely just want you guys to admit it is true that there are instances, and numerous of them, where the presence or absence of armor is truly irrelevant to the mechanical outcome of an attack.

And frankly what MORE do you want armor to do?  You're likely already taking little or no damage anyway with a soak pool that big.

I want armor to protect characters from a portion of damage. Really simple. I also want wearing armor to
always provide some sort of benefit over just being naked, and this second one is equally important. Right now it can only situationally do these things.

Reducing opponent edge gain does not equal reducing incoming damage. Sometimes it can, but often it doesn't.

One's opinion on armor in 6we has to ultimately weigh in on "Do you WANT people being reasonably likely to completely soak a hit?"

Honestly, I am indifferent to this personally. I'd rather see damage codes increased by +1 across the board and then have worn armor add to soak pools, or something similar and more sensical than the current incarnation.

[skalchemist]

I don't disagree with you that a Body of 10 is clearly superhuman, but I do disagree that because of that allowing armor on top of it to do nothing whatsoever is either logical or acceptable.

I'm not a fan of the whole AR/DR system for a lot of reasons, and whether a rule is acceptable or not is a matter of aesthetic preference, so you can find it unacceptable all you want, that's cool. 

But I don't think the rule is illogical.  It seems reasonable to me that combatant can be so cyber-ed up/magic-ed up/troll-ed up that armor is literally useless to them.  I'm ok with diminishing returns in damage resistance.  I mean, in the fiction, I'm picturing that troll you described and like, where do you even put the armor?  Its like putting a smear of butter on top of a massive double bacon chili cheeseburger.  Sure, it adds a bit more grease, but really, why bother? 

If anything, the fact that the troll literally can't benefit from armor because they are so bad ass is one of the few things I LIKE about AR/DR.  A run of the mill human has to put on something like that suit Bruce Banner wears in Avengers: Infinity War just to have a hope of standing toe to toe with that troll in his underwear; that's pretty awesome.

EDIT:  in response to your post that came in while I was typing this, I freely admit there are situations where armor will have no effect.   

[PMárk]

One's opinion on armor in 6we has to ultimately weigh in on "Do you WANT people being reasonably likely to completely soak a hit?".  If your answer to that is "YES!", then I think that you're fighting against the current.  5e had the problem where when you're successfully attacked, it meant you likely soaked it all, or the hit was so titanic it one shotted you.  THAT was terrible game design to leave precious little happening in-between.  I'll unapologetically take "you usually suffer some minor-to-moderate damage every time you're hit" 10 times out of 10 over 4e/5e's paradigm.

Problem is, that is how it works in the real world and that's why people wore armor through history, thus, it's making sense and feels natural and it's intuitive.

Armor is not a "maybe it helps a bit" thing. It's the thing you wear specifically for surviving hits that would otherwise seriously damage, or kill you. Strictly speaking, it doesn't even makes you harder to being hit (though one could argue it makes you harder to got hit meaningfully), but it protects you and it protects you WELL. Otherwise, it wouldn't worth the extra bulk, weight and less freedom of movement to wear it.


Armor adding to soak, is, IMO preferable. Having a serious impact on defense rolls is acceptable. That could even work like it's adding more edge points, not just one, depending on the armor, or the difference in AR/DR or whatnot, but those extra edge points being usable only for the defense roll, or soak roll in question. I dunno, I'm just thinking about possibilities. One thing I'm sure of: as it is, it's inadequate. For me, that's a lot bigger problem than having the occassional hyper-specialized troll tank character.

[PMárk]

I don't disagree with you that a Body of 10 is clearly superhuman, but I do disagree that because of that allowing armor on top of it to do nothing whatsoever is either logical or acceptable.

I'm not a fan of the whole AR/DR system for a lot of reasons, and whether a rule is acceptable or not is a matter of aesthetic preference, so you can find it unacceptable all you want, that's cool. 

What you like is preference. What makes sense is not, unfortunately.

But I don't think the rule is illogical.  It seems reasonable to me that combatant can be so cyber-ed up/magic-ed up/troll-ed up that armor is literally useless to them.  I'm ok with diminishing returns in damage resistance.  I mean, in the fiction, I'm picturing that troll you described and like, where do you even put the armor?  Its like putting a smear of butter on top of a massive double bacon chili cheeseburger.  Sure, it adds a bit more grease, but really, why bother? 

If anything, the fact that the troll literally can't benefit from armor because they are so bad ass is one of the few things I LIKE about AR/DR.  A run of the mill human has to put on something like that suit Bruce Banner wears in Avengers: Infinity War just to have a hope of standing toe to toe with that troll in his underwear; that's pretty awesome.

It's just not how it works. As long as the assumption is that the material the armor was made of is more durable than even the flesh and skin of the troll, it makes sense to them to wear it.

Cyber? That's literally armor and adding more armor to the vital spots, joints, head, etc makes sense, if you want that. It's just blurry, because well, if the coverage of the 'ware IS the armor itself, to the extent that adding more would make the construction too heavy, yes, then, that's it. You have armor, by virtue of having cyber.

Magic? Absolutely makes sense, since there are lots of things that could cancel out your magical protection, so wearing at least some moderate armor, just in case, is a no-brainer.Also, if you magical defense is not infinitely strong as to deflect anything, then, it's just about layers of protection.