[Xenon]

If the authors intent all along was that the rules should act just like they did in SR5 but that they cut a lot more text than they should this is what the result could end up looking like (please reread the rules from SR6 with the rules from SR5 in your mind and you will see what I mean). I already acknowledged that there are not enough remaining rules to directly support it. But what I am also saying is that there is nothing to directly contradict such a notion.

I also acknowledge that it can be read in other ways as well, but the others lack the whole idea behind the attacker taking an active action in an attempt to improve on their grip while the defender take an active action in an attempt to fully break free - which I personally like very much :-)

Without insights from the author himself I don't think we can reach a consensus on how to resolve this.

A) do Damage the Opponent and Tackle the Opponent also include maintaining the grapple? 

By a strict reading of the book (RAW) "Damage the opponent" is not the same as "Damage the opponent AND keep restraining" so the answer seem to be NO.

I don't think this was the author's intent.

But since the Grapple chapter also starts off with: "A physical attack can involve trying to bring an opponent to the ground, or trying to hold on to them so they can’t move." - it is also plausible that the intent here is that you actually have to choose between damage- or tackling the opponent or keeping the grip.

B) What does Break Free roll against?

By a strict reading (RAW) "This is a Close Combat + Strength test" seem to be resolved as an unopposed simple test where you only need 1 single hit to be successful.

I don't think this was the author's intent.

Of note, the test itself is STR+Close Combat vs STR+Close combat (not including some penalties being applied to the defender due to being afflicted by the grappled state)

SR6 p. 111 Grapple - Attacker - Damage the Opponent
...and the defender suffers the –4 dice pool penalty for being restrained.

If the intent was that "Restrain" and "Damage the opponent" both keep the grip even though the book doesn't explicitly say so then why didn't they instead just merge the two into one by adding; "Dealing damage is optional".

Would have saved them 30 words or so ;-)

Again, since thresholds are never established, tracked, or built upon... and everything else goes off STR+Close Combat vs STR+Close Combat

'Everything' except when it is opposed by Strength + Reaction. Or when it is opposed by Body + Strength. Or when you roll Strength + Net Hits vs Strength. Or when you roll Close Combat + Agility and just count net hits.

But I agree that the author probably intended that it should be opposed by Close Combat + Strength (or as a simple threshold test as in SR5).

But since there is no mentioning about a threshold nor an opposed test it is also plausible that the intent here is that you actually can break free super easy and one single hit is enough.

[Odsh]

It's clear that the grappling rules are not clear 

My interpretation is that they wanted to simplify things in SR6 by removing the need to keep track of the grapple threshold. Else why change the rules at all compared to SR5. Unfortunately, they rolled too many ones during that attempt.

I'm not even sure what RAI is at this point, I simply believe they didn't think this through. We can debate all day, but in the end there is no way to be sure.

I still believe that Stainless Steel Devil Rat's interpretation is the one that doesn't break RAW and keeps things as balanced as possible.
I agree that applying the SR5 rules is a good houserule though and probably a better one at that. Another one might just be to completely forget about the Restrain action and state that you don't need to do anything on your turn to maintain a grapple.

[MercilessMing]

Yeah, I’m dumping the test and going with major action to maintain restraint.  Two chances per turn to break free is nuts. Also IMO a big miss not to include Human Shield mechanics here.

[Xenon]

Else why change the rules at all compared to SR5.

Perhaps they didn't change the rules at all compared to SR5, perhaps they just cut words from SR5 while hoping that that we should realize that it should still be resolved in the same manner.


For me it make most sense that the grip will remain during the attackers action.
That you can just spend an action to maintain the grip without taking any test at all.
That breaking free is something that typically only happen during the defenders action.

That you can deal damage while maintaining the grip.
That if you fail to deal damage you will still maintain your grip.

That you can attempt to knock the target down while maintaining the grip.
That if you fail to knock the target down you will still maintain your grip.

That you can spend an action to attempt to again restrain the subject you will in fact try to establish a better grip.
That if you fail the grip will start to slip and it will become easier instead of harder for the target to break away on their turn.

Since there isn't really anything directly contradicting this as written I will just continue ruling it like this.
Others will read it differently and think it make more sense to resolve it in other ways. They are free to do so

RAW

To be honest, RAW is actually pretty clear:

• Either keep restraining OR inflict damage. Not both the same time
• Either keep restraining OR knock down. Not both at the same time.
• To break away the defender only need 1 hit on an unresisted test.

Neither SSDR nor me think this is RAI.
RAI however is not very clear.
There are a lot of gaps and you can fill it with all kinds of interpretations.
You seen good arguments for different ways of resolving it. Feel free to pick one.
Or strictly follow RAW. That is also an option.


Anyway, I don't think I will debate this dead horse more for now :-)

Yeah, I’m dumping the test and going with major action to maintain restraint.  Two chances per turn to break free is nuts.

Agreed.
And I am doing the same.

(but in addition to this I will also keep the option to take a test in order to improve on the grip).

Also IMO a big miss not to include Human Shield mechanics here.

In a sense I guess you have a human shield mechanic already build in.

If you shoot at the grappler then he take the test to avoid as normal. If he is successful then the victim take a test to avoid, but with a negative dice pool modifier of 4 dice.

Do you dare taking the shot? If you miss the guy holding the grip odds are high that you might instead hit the hostage.

If you also add on the Cover I, II, III, IV status on the grappler if he is aware and actively tries to hold the victim between himself and the shooter...... Bingo.

(but I agree that they should have added this as an advanced action to Grapple in Firing Squad - missed opportunity is missed opportunity)

[Odsh]

Perhaps they didn't change the rules at all compared to SR5, perhaps they just cut words from SR5 while hoping that that we should realize that it should still be resolved in the same manner.

 

Also IMO a big miss not to include Human Shield mechanics here.

In a sense I guess you have a human shield mechanic already build in.

If you shoot at the grappler then he take the test to avoid as normal. If he is successful then the victim take a test to avoid, but with a negative dice pool modifier of 4 dice.

Unless I missed something, according to the rules it's the other way round: you risk hitting the grappler when attacking the restrained individual.

It makes sense to have this work both ways though, even if it isn't explicitly written.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Unless I missed something, according to the rules it's the other way round: you risk hitting the grappler when attacking the restrained individual.

It is of course there... it's just not hard-coded as to where the effect begins and how far it extends, as saying it gives Cover X or so on.

[Odsh]

Unless I missed something, according to the rules it's the other way round: you risk hitting the grappler when attacking the restrained individual.

It is of course there... it's just not hard-coded as to where the effect begins and how far it extends, as saying it gives Cover X or so on.

I would have preferred the former to be more explicit, but your ymmv.

That in itself doesn't make the grappler less likely to be hit though. I like the idea of Xenon of using the restrained target as Cover for that. The Take Cover minor action in that case means that you do your best to position the restrained individual between yourself and other enemies.

The GM could also decide that the rating of the Cover status cannot exceed the net hits on the grapple action for instance (or the grapple threshold if you play with the SR5 rules).