[Hephaestus]

I think the negative modifier at close and near ranges would be less of an issue with assault rifles or SMGs.

And to be fair, you shouldn't be able to accurately fire a long rifle point blank while looking through a scope. A button/zipper could fill your whole view, and the second they move you would lose sight of them.

[Xenon]

But if you are using a SMG with an imaging scope then suddenly your first take aim action at close and near distance will no longer give you a positive dice pool modifier of 1 dice. So you see, there is already a 'cost' for using an imaging scope at close or near range (and there would be no benefit at all of using one at this range).

Even on 50-250 meter range (which is their max range category for a SMG, but also a range category where using an imaging scope actually would make sense in some situations) you would still trade a positive dice pool modifier of 1 dice on your first take aim action for a +2 AR increase (increasing their base AR from 6-8 depending on model to 8-10 at this range category - which might or might not be worth it, but totally 'fine' if you ask me).



You would get the exact same behavior by using a vision magnification visual enhancement in your cybereyes. The imaging scope on its own is just a cheap way alternative source to gain access to the visual enhancement. It doesn't really 'add' anything on its own.


What I am really proposing is that imaging scope no longer 'deny edge gain from DR at any range on a take aim action' and instead do 'nothing' (a nerf). But also that you cannot take a shot at extreme range without having access to visual magnification (which is a 'buff' for the visual magnification effect I guess you might say, but you can also gain this effect from many different sources, one is by using an imaging scope, another is by wearing goggles and a third is by having cybereyes....)

At the very least they should consider changing the:
'deny edge gain from DR at any range on a take aim action'
to:
'deny edge gain from DR at medium, far or extreme range on a take aim action'
(and I think this is where it will end up in the errata).

[Jimmy_Pvish]

New standard issue of all corpsec in 2080 

[Finstersang]

But if you are using a SMG with an imaging scope then suddenly your first take aim action at close and near distance will no longer give you a positive dice pool modifier of 1 dice. So you see, there is already a 'cost' for using an imaging scope at close or near range (and there would be no benefit at all of using one at this range).

Even on 50-250 meter range (which is their max range category for a SMG, but also a range category where using an imaging scope actually would make sense in some situations) you would still trade a positive dice pool modifier of 1 dice on your first take aim action for a +2 AR increase (increasing their base AR from 6-8 depending on model to 8-10 at this range category - which might or might not be worth it, but totally 'fine' if you ask me).



You would get the exact same behavior by using a vision magnification visual enhancement in your cybereyes. The imaging scope on its own is just a cheap way alternative source to gain access to the visual enhancement. It doesn't really 'add' anything on its own.


What I am really proposing is that imaging scope no longer 'deny edge gain from DR at any range on a take aim action' and instead do 'nothing' (a nerf). But also that you cannot take a shot at extreme range without having access to visual magnification (which is a 'buff' for the visual magnification effect I guess you might say, but you can also gain this effect from many different sources, one is by using an imaging scope, another is by wearing goggles and a third is by having cybereyes....)

At the very least they should consider changing the:
'deny edge gain from DR at any range on a take aim action'
to:
'deny edge gain from DR at medium, far or extreme range on a take aim action'
(and I think this is where it will end up in the errata).

(Partial) Cross-post from another Thread:

Since there is no page reference from the Imaging Scope to Vision magnification despite being part of the description, it´s probably yet another case of one hand not knowing what the other is doing.

The (additional?) effect of the Scope (denying Edge gain because of DR) simply doesn´t fit the purpose. I highly suspect that it was originally conceived under the premise that Sniper Rifles would have vastly lower Attack ratings on extreme ranges. They don´t, so now , this effect is only usefull for snipers when "sniping" from 3 Meters afar, when shooting multiple bullets, or when the target is extremely well armored. Apart from maybe the last one, none of these scenarios match up with the intended use of an imaging Scope. Quite the opposite, actually.

So why not throw that whole kibosh (along with APDS Ammo, because holy shit what were they thinking?!) in the errata/houserule machine and make something out of it that at least remotely resembles the actual purpose of these items?

A humble suggestion:

• Vision Magnification: When used with the Take Aim Action, increase the AP on Medium, Long and Extreme Ranges by 2 in addition to any other effects of the Take Aim Action.
• Imaging Scope: The same as Vision Magnification, plus the wireless effect (sharing feeds with team members)
• APDS Ammo: No reduction of the Damage Code, no change to AR. New Effect: Your target cannot gain Edge by having a higher Defense Rating. (So basically, the previous effect of the Imaging Scope. This fits better, because it will usually trigger when the Defense Rating is very high because of Cover and Armor)

[Lormyr]

• APDS Ammo: No reduction of the Damage Code, no change to AR. New Effect: Your target cannot gain Edge by having a higher Defense Rating. (So basically, the previous effect of the Imaging Scope. This fits better, because it will usually trigger when the Defense Rating is very high because of Cover and Armor)

No single piece of equipment should have the potential to nullify an aspect of a character build that required substantial resources to achieve. This is the pinnacle of poor game balance imo. If they want to make it possible for AR to match the potential for DR, that is fine. It should just require the same level of investment in essence, power points, spells, and/or money that it takes to acquire that level of DR.

I want you to think about this for a moment. Figurative "you" makes a physical adept or street samuari, and decides that being a super tough edge-generating on defense machine sounds fun. You spend all 3 of your starting power points into mystic armor or the vast majority of your essence and nuyen into bone lacing, cyberlimbs, and dermal plating. During the course of your play some enemy fires on you and says "Oh and by the way, you can't gain edge from my attack because i spent 350 nuyen on this scope", how do you think that will make figurative "you" feel? I took one look at this system and realized focusing on DR wasn't worth the effort, but even I am still irate that someone thought allowing this to potentially happen was an acceptable idea.

[penllawen]

I tend to agree with Lormyr here. Completely negating armour feels cheap, and it also makes APDS the only ammo anyone will choose (which is boring). How about a reduction to the target's DR value from APDS, instead? It goes against the implicit design goal of "AR and DR values are static and pre-calculated to speed combat resolution" but even so it might be the lesser evil.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Devil's Advocate here...

APDS giving a - to DR is mechanically the same thing as giving a + to AR, which is what it already does. And AR is already variable thanks to gun mods, firing modes, taking aim, going prone, etc. Adding variability to DR is probably not helpful from a streamlining POV.

[Finstersang]

• APDS Ammo: No reduction of the Damage Code, no change to AR. New Effect: Your target cannot gain Edge by having a higher Defense Rating. (So basically, the previous effect of the Imaging Scope. This fits better, because it will usually trigger when the Defense Rating is very high because of Cover and Armor)

No single piece of equipment should have the potential to nullify an aspect of a character build that required substantial resources to achieve. This is the pinnacle of poor game balance imo. If they want to make it possible for AR to match the potential for DR, that is fine. It should just require the same level of investment in essence, power points, spells, and/or money that it takes to acquire that level of DR.

I want you to think about this for a moment. Figurative "you" makes a physical adept or street samuari, and decides that being a super tough edge-generating on defense machine sounds fun. You spend all 3 of your starting power points into mystic armor or the vast majority of your essence and nuyen into bone lacing, cyberlimbs, and dermal plating. During the course of your play some enemy fires on you and says "Oh and by the way, you can't gain edge from my attack because i spent 350 nuyen on this scope", how do you think that will make figurative "you" feel? I took one look at this system and realized focusing on DR wasn't worth the effort, but even I am still irate that someone thought allowing this to potentially happen was an acceptable idea.

I´m on your side here in principle, but in this case, APDS is literally the exact kind of "tool" that is supposed to nullify the advantage from high Armor and Cover.

I am pretty sure we´re on the same side that this effect makes no damn sense for the Imaging Scope, after all

So: If someone insists that there really should be a piece of gear with that kind of effect - at least stick it to something that fits!

Feel free to suggest a different effect for APDS. I could think of other mechanics that would fit the purpose just as nicely, mostly revolving around the reduction of (Hardened) Armor and/or Cover Levels (which, unlike the current effect of increasing AR, would actually care if there is some form of protection to begin with). Or just stick with the increased AR, but ditch the Damage Reduction, so it´s not and absolute trap. Or you keep the Damage reduction (because something something overpenetration), but make the bonus against armored targets powerfull enough so that it is justified. This one is just my humble attempt to  "rearrange" some parts of the RAW to make at least some sense. 

[penllawen]

Oh, huh, you're right. I worded that wrongly. What I meant was to subtract from only the armour portion of DR, leaving other types alone. But when you put it your way, it's a fair bit more work for little real gain over just increasing the AR.

[WereAardvark]

Okay so this is my first post and first edition of shadowrun but I have been lurking and this APDS argument has been hurting my head and I'm beginning to think it's because I'm making the mistake of applying a real world term to the game.  Does APDS mean amour-piercing discarding sabot?  If it does then (discarding it's dubious viability in small arms to begin with) it absolutely should have -1 dv as the sabot would reduce the over all size of the round, the effect should probably be to negate the benefits of hardened armour, as APDS rounds in the real world are manufactured to Pierce the sides of tanks and ships they have nothing to do with body armor

[Finstersang]

Oh, huh, you're right. I worded that wrongly. What I meant was to subtract from only the armour portion of DR, leaving other types alone. But when you put it your way, it's a fair bit more work for little real gain over just increasing the AR.

Reducing the Armor score instead of the AR can also mean that the amount of reduction is proportional to the total Armor Score.

Example: "APDS cuts the target´s armor value in half (round up). This applies to hardened Armor as well."   

This is a thing that many systems that offer some kind of "Armor Penetration" mechanic don´t get quite right IMO. When the AP reduces armor by a fixed amount, then its viability is largely independent of the question how much total armor the target has as long as that value is equal to or higher than the amount of reduction. If the reduction is proportional to the Armor score, it basically means: "The more armor the target has, the better it is to use APDS in comparison to other types of Ammo." 

[Michael Chandra]

Okay so this is my first post and first edition of shadowrun but I have been lurking and this APDS argument has been hurting my head and I'm beginning to think it's because I'm making the mistake of applying a real world term to the game.  Does APDS mean amour-piercing discarding sabot?  If it does then (discarding it's dubious viability in small arms to begin with) it absolutely should have -1 dv as the sabot would reduce the over all size of the round, the effect should probably be to negate the benefits of hardened armour, as APDS rounds in the real world are manufactured to Pierce the sides of tanks and ships they have nothing to do with body armor

Yeah, I think I'd go with +2 AR / -1 DV against normal people, maybe +2/- against vehicles, negates up to 2 autohits of Hardened Armor?

[Finstersang]

Okay so this is my first post and first edition of shadowrun but I have been lurking and this APDS argument has been hurting my head and I'm beginning to think it's because I'm making the mistake of applying a real world term to the game.  Does APDS mean amour-piercing discarding sabot?  If it does then (discarding it's dubious viability in small arms to begin with) it absolutely should have -1 dv as the sabot would reduce the over all size of the round, the effect should probably be to negate the benefits of hardened armour, as APDS rounds in the real world are manufactured to Pierce the sides of tanks and ships they have nothing to do with body armor

+1 for realism

That damage reduction is not unsubstantiated from that perspective. However, the advantage of APDS against the right targets has to be quite massive to balance this drawback out - both from a realism and a balancing perspective. 

[Lormyr]

I´m on your side here in principle, but in this case, APDS is literally the exact kind of "tool" that is supposed to nullify the advantage from high Armor and Cover.

I am pretty sure we´re on the same side that this effect makes no damn sense for the Imaging Scope, after all

My criticism of 6e is not just about making sense. When I evaluate a game, I look at four aspects: game balance, fun, logic, and player expectation. Game balance is the most important to me personally, but it wins by a narrow margin.

APDS, as written, does it's job just fine - it assists the attacker in overcoming DR in a balanced way. The imaging scope, however, fails all four check points for me.

And that is the real overall issue I have with 6e. In the non-combat department, rigger mess aside, I am content to slightly happy with the changes and direction. In the combat department though, the system is a disappointment to me, particularly in the game balance and player expectations departments.

[Finstersang]

Okay so this is my first post and first edition of shadowrun but I have been lurking and this APDS argument has been hurting my head and I'm beginning to think it's because I'm making the mistake of applying a real world term to the game.  Does APDS mean amour-piercing discarding sabot?  If it does then (discarding it's dubious viability in small arms to begin with) it absolutely should have -1 dv as the sabot would reduce the over all size of the round, the effect should probably be to negate the benefits of hardened armour, as APDS rounds in the real world are manufactured to Pierce the sides of tanks and ships they have nothing to do with body armor

Yeah, I think I'd go with +2 AR / -1 DV against normal people, maybe +2/- against vehicles, negates up to 2 autohits of Hardened Armor?

It´s maybe a bit too complicated for my taste, but it goes in the right direction. 

Another Suggestion: Decrease Damage by 1 as before (regardless of the type of target). Cut the following ratings in half (round up) for the target: Armor, Hardened Armor, Cover rating.

Side note: If you want APDS to have some kind of special interaction with Hardened Armor, then it´s probably a good idea to first determine if HA needs some kind of change as well. With the overall damage reduction, Spirits have gone out of hand.

APDS, as written, does it's job just fine - it assists the attacker in overcoming DR in a balanced way.

With the added Damage reduction, no. It´s an absolute Trap.