[skalchemist]

...is this not possible in 6e? (In the same way it was possible in 5e, I mean, and IIRC all former editions before that. So choosing not to act as soon as you could, and instead acting at some later point in the round of your choosing.)

You don't have to spend your minor and major action on your turn. You can save them and then later use them on Anytime actions depending on what others do later in the combat turn.

Such as:

Avoid Incoming
Block
Change Device Mode
Dodge
Drop Object
Hit the Dirt
Intercept
Assist
Counterspell
Full Defense

I think Penllawen's point was that in 6E there is no way to use an (I) action (e.g. Attack) at any time later in the combat round than your initiative score, while in earlier versions this was possible.  It seems that SSDR agrees that this is, indeed, the case.  YMMV as to whether you think this is a good, bad, or indifferent change in the way combat works from earlier editions to 6E.   

[penllawen]

I think Penllawen's point was that in 6E there is no way to use an (I) action (e.g. Attack) at any time later in the combat round than your initiative score, while in earlier versions this was possible.

Yes, indeed, exactly that. And it’s an option that is frequently used by my players and not enormously complicated to track, and hence, to my mind, a puzzling omission.

[Banshee]

I think Penllawen's point was that in 6E there is no way to use an (I) action (e.g. Attack) at any time later in the combat round than your initiative score, while in earlier versions this was possible.

Yes, indeed, exactly that. And it’s an option that is frequently used by my players and not enormously complicated to track, and hence, to my mind, a puzzling omission.

As I stated earlier yo thread ... its was also a needlessly complicated mechanic. If you want to hikd you action just do it as long as your not trying to earlier than you should or carry an action into the next round you're not changing anything that matters.

[penllawen]

If you want to hikd you action just do it as long as your not trying to earlier than you should or carry an action into the next round you're not changing anything that matters.

Well, that makes perfect sense to me, and I'd assumed it was the answer, but SSDR said it was an "anathema to the design goals."

Thanks.

I'd go one stage further, personally. I would allow a player with (say) two Major actions on phase 31 to take one Major at that point, then hold the other Major for later, in case they want a defensive action. Then, if we're at the end of initiative and they haven't needed that second Major for defence after all, I'd let them use it then, before the turn ends. They haven't gotten to do any more things, they've just done them in a different order.

Characters pay a steep, steep price for their actions, in nuyen/essence/power points. Seeing them wasted because they had the tactical smarts to hold some back for defence but then didn't use them -  that doesn't feel very fun to me.

[Banshee]

If you want to hikd you action just do it as long as your not trying to earlier than you should or carry an action into the next round you're not changing anything that matters.

Well, that makes perfect sense to me, and I'd assumed it was the answer, but SSDR said it was an "anathema to the design goals."

Thanks.

I'd go one stage further, personally. I would allow a player with (say) two Major actions on phase 31 to take one Major at that point, then hold the other Major for later, in case they want a defensive action. Then, if we're at the end of initiative and they haven't needed that second Major for defence after all, I'd let them use it then, before the turn ends. They haven't gotten to do any more things, they've just done them in a different order.

Characters pay a steep, steep price for their actions, in nuyen/essence/power points. Seeing them wasted because they had the tactical smarts to hold some back for defence but then didn't use them -  that doesn't feel very fun to me.

For splitting attacks like that... I would have see how it plays out but my first thought is no. I lean towards you only get to make attacks once (whether it's one or two) ... making one attack then holding a potential second attack could potentially be an issue with how other parties interact and kind of turns it back into the multiple pass scenarios which would be against the design goals of 6E.

Could be wrong though, so depends on how it works out.

[skalchemist]

I'd go one stage further, personally. I would allow a player with (say) two Major actions on phase 31 to take one Major at that point, then hold the other Major for later, in case they want a defensive action. Then, if we're at the end of initiative and they haven't needed that second Major for defence after all, I'd let them use it then, before the turn ends. They haven't gotten to do any more things, they've just done them in a different order.

I'm not saying you are wrong, here, Penllawen.  We are in the realm of house rules, and people like what they like in house rules. 

For me, I like the current decision making, where that major action 1) can only be used for an anytime action, not an initiative action, and 2) might functionally end up wasted if you get to the end of the round and nothing happens to make use of it.  It makes the decision whether to leave actions unspent when your turn comes up harder to make, you have to try to guess what your opponents might do.  I find that interesting, it adds spice to the combat for me.

But again, I'm not saying you are wrong; I can see why some people might really hate that kind of decision making and find it unfun.

[Beta]

With the various interpretations, how do you rule things work in the following situation: 
- during a gun-battle NPC1 just dodged behind a vending machine
- Player says "My Sammie shoots them when they break cover to shoot at me, but  but if they don't pop out by the end of the round I guess I try to shoot through the vending machine."

I think what I'm hearing is "No, that doesn't work, because ..."
a) "Shooting a gun is an 'I' action, and can only be done on your initiative"
b) "You can wait for them to expose themselves and then shoot, but if they don't you can't then decide to try and shoot through the vending machine, you had to do that back on your initiative pass"
c) "No, because on their turn the NPC will use a simple to move out of cover, a major to attack, and a minor to move back into cover, and nowhere in there do you have a chance to shoot them.  Don't even worry about the initiative and type of action, your whole plan doesn't work"

[Banshee]

With the various interpretations, how do you rule things work in the following situation: 
- during a gun-battle NPC1 just dodged behind a vending machine
- Player says "My Sammie shoots them when they break cover to shoot at me, but  but if they don't pop out by the end of the round I guess I try to shoot through the vending machine."

I think what I'm hearing is "No, that doesn't work, because ..."
a) "Shooting a gun is an 'I' action, and can only be done on your initiative"
b) "You can wait for them to expose themselves and then shoot, but if they don't you can't then decide to try and shoot through the vending machine, you had to do that back on your initiative pass"
c) "No, because on their turn the NPC will use a simple to move out of cover, a major to attack, and a minor to move back into cover, and nowhere in there do you have a chance to shoot them.  Don't even worry about the initiative and type of action, your whole plan doesn't work"

At my table I would allow it because you have essentially already declared your intention to shoot NPC 1 and since you're faster I would allow you take that advantage.
What I would not allow is change that declared attack to another target because NPC 1 didn't give the opportunity.

But there is no RAW that says that but it's more fun for the player so why not since it still commits that action to that particular target.

[MercilessMing]

I totally forgot about this.  It came up in my game a couple weeks ago and I forgot about it afterward.  My player had drawn on an NPC and said "if he goes for his gun, I want to shoot him", and I realized there is nothing to support using an attack as an interrupt.  I let him do it, of course, because that's common sense in games with guns and something you could do in SR for as long as I recall.  All kinds of tactical turn based games have some kind of "overwatch" concept for attacking out of turn.  How about: Overwatch - Minor (I) Enables the use of the major action: Attack (A) after declaring a specific trigger condition.

[Michael Chandra]

Basically you want some ranged variation of Intercept with proper restriction. Hm, honestly I think just Intercept but ranged is too OP. I'd at the very least require you to spend a Major Action on Enter Overwatch in advance (so it might get wasted, unlike Intercept which you can just do at any time), and maybe some more restrictions (as well as Minor Engage Overwatch when you actually use the Overwatch).

[skalchemist]

I totally forgot about this.  It came up in my game a couple weeks ago and I forgot about it afterward.  My player had drawn on an NPC and said "if he goes for his gun, I want to shoot him", and I realized there is nothing to support using an attack as an interrupt.  I let him do it, of course, because that's common sense in games with guns and something you could do in SR for as long as I recall.  All kinds of tactical turn based games have some kind of "overwatch" concept for attacking out of turn.  How about: Overwatch - Minor (I) Enables the use of the major action: Attack (A) after declaring a specific trigger condition.

This is interesting. 

I think there are two potential house rule strategies described here, both involving some kind of cost to act later in the round...
1) Reduce initiative strategy - you voluntarily act later in the round, but your initiative is set to the new value of the moment you acted. 
2) Commit an action strategy - you can commit to take an action later in the round based on some triggering condition, perhaps at the cost of an extra minor action, but if the trigger does not occur the action is wasted.

Both seem workable to me, but each has their own weirdness.

With option 2 there is really no way to "overwatch" using an action against a person who moves BEFORE you in the initiative order, right?  Because your actions refresh at the start of the next round.   Maybe that is ok; it certainly increases the value of high initiative scores.  And if you make the "overwatch" last until the start of your next TURN, that leads to the weirdness of you sort of having one extra action on your next round.  For example, lets say you go on Init 23 and I go on Init 22.  If I can Overwatch until the start of my next turn, I could shoot you as you come out of cover on Init 23 with the Overwatch, and then shoot you again on my own turn.  That seems too easy to achieve the "double action" that SSDR is warning against. 

On the other hand, option 1 can lead to some weird "race to the bottom" situations.  Like, I want to move after Bob, so I hold off until Bob's turn.  But Bob doesn't want me to act after him, so Bob delays as well.  If we both just stare at each other til the end of the round, what happens?  Do both of our initiative scores reset to our previous values compared to everyone else in the fight, or are we both now at zero initiative?  On one hand, that's seems a bit "realistic" (by some definition); nobody wants to get shot!  But on the other hand, it doesn't really lead to pulse-pounding action.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

With the various interpretations, how do you rule things work in the following situation: 
- during a gun-battle NPC1 just dodged behind a vending machine
- Player says "My Sammie shoots them when they break cover to shoot at me, but  but if they don't pop out by the end of the round I guess I try to shoot through the vending machine."

I think what I'm hearing is "No, that doesn't work, because ..."
a) "Shooting a gun is an 'I' action, and can only be done on your initiative"
b) "You can wait for them to expose themselves and then shoot, but if they don't you can't then decide to try and shoot through the vending machine, you had to do that back on your initiative pass"
c) "No, because on their turn the NPC will use a simple to move out of cover, a major to attack, and a minor to move back into cover, and nowhere in there do you have a chance to shoot them.  Don't even worry about the initiative and type of action, your whole plan doesn't work"

How *I* would adjudicate it is let the Sammie shoot now, at whatever level of cover the NPC will be using when he goes to in his upcoming turn, rather than the full cover he might happen to be in now for the Sammie's action. Just let the player do what he's trying to do rather than find a way to convolute initiative orders. Assuming, of course, I know that's what the NPC intends to do. If he's gonna cower, then sure make the Sammie just shoot now through the whole vending machine.

6we is closer to a storytelling game than a combat simulator. A turn to do something goes around the table. Round and around until combat is done. No need to get cute with swapping positions in order, imo.

[Typhus]

Here's my default process for any game, unless the rules say otherwise.

1) Spend your action to create a Readied Action: You declare the thing you are prepping to do, and if the circumstances you specified come about, you can take your action.  This action can interrupt another character, if that was your goal.  If the system uses Reactions, it would probably cost one of these to use as well.  In SR6 this would be a Minor Action, as I would rule it. 
Option: You can opt to spend the required trigger action on something else defensively, but you of course sacrifice the Readied action to do so.

2) Delay Your Turn: You wait until later in the Initiative Order to act.  The caveat is that your turn cannot interrupt another character's turn.  You go after another character has acted (since you didn't prepare a readied Action).  When you elect to act, you take your full turn, and move to that spot in the Initiative Order for the remainder of the combat encounter.

Something of this nature is often needed in order to wait for enemies to appear from behind full cover and taking a shot at them once they do.  If SR6 doesn't have both types of options (or doesn't intentionally disallow one RAW), I'd houserule them in specifically, so people know they can play it out this way. 

[penllawen]

6we is closer to a storytelling game than a combat simulator. A turn to do something goes around the table. Round and around until combat is done. No need to get cute with swapping positions in order, imo.

If you want a storytelling game, drop initiative entirely. Works fine in The Sprawl. 6e is miles and miles away from being genuinely rules-light.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

6we is closer to a storytelling game than a combat simulator. A turn to do something goes around the table. Round and around until combat is done. No need to get cute with swapping positions in order, imo.

If you want a storytelling game, drop initiative entirely. Works fine in The Sprawl. 6e is miles and miles away from being genuinely rules-light.

We're going in circles.

There is no rule for delaying your turn in the CRB. Lets just agree to disagree about whether or not that's a good or bad thing. Especially since the combat rules splatbook is coming.