[penllawen]

Am I going mad, or 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.)

Scouring the Jan errata version CRB I found only the following text that looked relevant:

pg 40:

When you get to take a turn and describe what your character is doing, your actions are contained in a combat round. A combat round lasts for about three seconds of in-universe time. Everyone, player characters and non-player characters alike, take a single player turn within that round.

Each combat round, you gain an action allotment that you use on your player turn. Actions come in two categories: Minor and Major. The basic action allotment for each character is 1 Minor Action and 1 Major Action per combat round. Players get 1 additional Minor Action for every Initiative Die they have. Players can trade Minor and Major Actions, using a Major Action to perform a Minor Action or using 4 Minor Actions to perform a Major Action (possibly providing an extra attack in a single player turn). Each action has a note next to it indicating when it can be performed; this is either Initiative (I) or Anytime (A). Initiative Actions can only be performed on the character’s player turn during an initiative round, while Anytime Actions can be used at any time. Note, though, that in order to perform an Anytime Action, you must have an Action left. If you spent them all on your turn, you can’t use one later. So sometimes it pays to save an action for later in the round if you act early. Note that actions cannot be carried from one round to another unless that is specifically allowed in a rule.

No mention here of taking an (I) action during any part of a round other than your turn as defined by your initiative roll.

pg 42:

Intercept (A)

If an opponent comes within Close attack range, you may go out of Initiative order and make an Attack action as long as you have both a Minor and a Major Action still available in this round (because you either are after the attacking player in Initiative order or you deferred some of your actions). This counts as your Attack Major Action for the player turn. If you’re already out of Major Actions this round, you’re drek out of luck.

Note that this refers to using "deferred" actions, but only for an (A) action.

pg 36:

Teamwork Tests in Initiative

To assist another member of your team while acting in Initiative order (see p. 39), you have to declare your assistance before they act and while you still have a Major Action to use. The Assist Major Action is used to become a helper on a Teamwork test. The leader must perform their part of the test the next time they have a combat round. If they take actions without doing their part of the Teamwork test, or if they defer their actions, the extra dice from the helpers are lost. They can start the process over again if they would like on their next turn.

Assist is an (A) action, so this doesn't involve "defer" in the same sense as 5e used it.

Is this intentional, or change blindness?

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

I'm not sure I even understand your question. What is the underlying purpose you're angling at in deferring your turn?

If you want to let another player go first so you can assist them in some task, then you use the Assist anytime action.  You don't HAVE to assist after they go. 

If you want to let an enemy act first, but you beat them on initiative, then what do you do? is that what you're getting at?
Ok, granted there ARE plausible reasons to prefer to let an NPC take the first move. Naturally the assumption is you'd usually rather just attack first, though. To this I'd say that yes, there is currently no mechanic in place. As a table GM, I'd potentially let you just willingly subtract whatever number you wanted from your initiative result so you can go after whoever you want to go first.  But hells to the no, I wouldn't let you delay in round 1 then revert back to your full score in round 2 so that you can double up actions on the NPC.  That's anathema to the design goals. You roll initiative once per combat in 6we, and you keep the same score throughout.  Frankly, if you won on initiative but tactics say you need to let the other side take the first move, I'd say what you should do if you won initiative is some preparatory/anticipatory action like Full Defense.  Let them attack, then round 2 you attack back.

Of course, Firing Line is going to be the expanded combat rules book, so odds are decent that it'll offer some official "initiative juggling" options.

[penllawen]

If you want to let an enemy act first, but you beat them on initiative, then what do you do? is that what you're getting at?
Ok, granted there ARE plausible reasons to prefer to let an NPC take the first move. Naturally the assumption is you'd usually rather just attack first, though. To this I'd say that yes, there is currently no mechanic in place.

Yes. Every other version of Shadowrun has seen fit to devote half a page or so to this exact mechanic (see eg. page 161 of 5e CRB or page 145 of 20A4a CRB), so I don't see why it's a weird or surprising thing for players to ask for all of a sudden.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

If you want to let an enemy act first, but you beat them on initiative, then what do you do? is that what you're getting at?
Ok, granted there ARE plausible reasons to prefer to let an NPC take the first move. Naturally the assumption is you'd usually rather just attack first, though. To this I'd say that yes, there is currently no mechanic in place.

Yes. Every other version of Shadowrun has seen fit to devote half a page or so to this exact mechanic (see eg. page 161 of 5e CRB), so I don't see why it's a weird or surprising thing for players to ask for all of a sudden.

I wouldn't say it's wierd to ask about. I also wouldn't say it's a case of change blindness, either.  Having the same initiative score round after round, across the entire combat is a deliberate thing for 6we.

If you want the other side to "throw the first punch" but you won initiative? Fine.  You get to prep for it with a Full Defense, or by taking cover, or whatever.  They attack.  Then, round 2, you attack back, and you got everything you needed PLUS making that first punch probably be less effective.  What I don't think you're going to see is a way to get 2 turns to the other guy's 1.

[Banshee]

Also because it was a needlessly complicated mechanic ( do we need a rule that says ... if you want to concede initiative then do it), but it's still a use it or lose it when it comes to actions. You don't have to spend actions on your turn but you don't get to carry them over to the next round either. 

[penllawen]

If you want the other side to "throw the first punch" but you won initiative? Fine.  You get to prep for it with a Full Defense, or by taking cover, or whatever.  They attack.  Then, round 2, you attack back, and you got everything you needed PLUS making that first punch probably be less effective.  What I don't think you're going to see is a way to get 2 turns to the other guy's 1.

There are lots of other scenarios for deferred actions. Suppose two PCs will act before some NPCs, but the PC that acts second wants to set the situation the up in some way for the first. For example, PC2 wants to lob a grenade to flush NPCs from cover, then PC1 wants to shoot. Or if PC2 is a rigger and wants to manoeuvre the team’s vehicle into a position from which PC1 can fire on an enemy. Or if PC2 is a decker and wants to use a Matrix attack to move a drone out of cover to where PC1 can shoot it. A drone or a spirit doesn’t know what to do on their phase, so awaits orders from their rigger or mage. Etc etc etc.

There’s endless permutations of situations PCs can devise where they might want to defer an action to later in a turn, but feel unfairly disadvantaged at deferring their action entirely into the next turn. I see this routinely at my table - I am surprised this seems to surprise you.

[skalchemist]

You roll initiative once per combat in 6we, and you keep the same score throughout. 

There is one way to improve your initiative score, the Edge Boost for +3 initiative for 1 Edge. 

I think the presence of this Edge boost argues against a house rule that would let a person voluntarily take (I) actions later in the turn than their initiative score and then go back to their original score.  But I think a house rule that let you reduce your initiative score voluntarily but stay at that score would probably work fine.

On a related note, the Full Defense action says (in the latest PDF of the rules):

A character can add their Willpower to all De-
fense tests until their next combat round.

Does that really mean "until their next turn in the initiative order"?  Or does it mean "until the end of the next combat round"?  Or "until the start of the next round"? or something else?

One interesting thing I find with the SR 6E combat system (I can't speak to earlier versions) compared to, say, D&D 5E is the way the action economy is tied to rounds, not turns.  In D&D 5E, things like your reaction last from turn to turn, as do most effects (e.g. things you need to make a saving throw for).   This means that after the first round, your exact initiative score is not that important all that matters is relative position which proceeds like a loop, round and round.  You hardly need to pay attention to the exact end/beginning of the round in most cases.

In SR 6E, though, all participants action supply refreshes at the start of each round.  So there is a real need to track the rounds, and the exact order that people go in the round might make a big difference on later rounds of combat, not just the first round.  And because of that Edge Boost the exact value of your initiative makes a difference, not just relative position.  Every multiple of 3 difference in initiative is an important value.  There is actually a trade off between going first in the round versus going last; if you go first you get to hit everyone and make them use up defensive actions or make hard choices every round, but if you go last you always know you can use up any actions you have left safely. 

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

If you want the other side to "throw the first punch" but you won initiative? Fine.  You get to prep for it with a Full Defense, or by taking cover, or whatever.  They attack.  Then, round 2, you attack back, and you got everything you needed PLUS making that first punch probably be less effective.  What I don't think you're going to see is a way to get 2 turns to the other guy's 1.

There are lots of other scenarios for deferred actions. Suppose two PCs will act before some NPCs, but the PC that acts second wants to set the situation the up in some way for the first. For example, PC2 wants to lob a grenade to flush NPCs from cover, then PC1 wants to shoot. Or if PC2 is a rigger and wants to manoeuvre the team’s vehicle into a position from which PC1 can fire on an enemy. Or if PC2 is a decker and wants to use a Matrix attack to move a drone out of cover to where PC1 can shoot it. A drone or a spirit doesn’t know what to do on their phase, so awaits orders from their rigger or mage. Etc etc etc.

There’s endless permutations of situations PCs can devise where they might want to defer an action to later in a turn, but feel unfairly disadvantaged at deferring their action entirely into the next turn. I see this routinely at my table - I am surprised this seems to surprise you.

It's not surprising. I just fail to see the need for a mechanic.  As I mentioned in my first reply, if you REALLY must delay your action, I don't see any harm in just letting you subtract some arbitrary number from your initiative score so you don't go before certain other parties.  It's just that it's important to make the distinction this is EVERY round, not just one round. No way, no how should you be able/allowed to get 2 turns inside of another party's 2 turns.

EDIT:
I think this is where we're getting hung on different hooks:

where they might want to defer an action to later in a turn, but feel unfairly disadvantaged at deferring their action entirely into the next turn.

What's the big difference between going later in the same round, and first in the 2nd round?

[penllawen]

where they might want to defer an action to later in a turn, but feel unfairly disadvantaged at deferring their action entirely into the next turn.

What's the big difference between going later in the same round, and first in the 2nd round?

You get a lot more shot at in the second scenario.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

where they might want to defer an action to later in a turn, but feel unfairly disadvantaged at deferring their action entirely into the next turn.

What's the big difference between going later in the same round, and first in the 2nd round?

You get a lot more shot at in the second scenario.

The transition from round to round is arbitrary. You get shot at the same number of times across the NPCs all getting one turn no matter where your turn lies in relation to them.  You go, they go, you go, they go.  Or they go, you go, they go,  you go.  There is no capacity in the rules for they go, you go, you go, they go.  Deliberately so.  It's not change blindness.

[penllawen]

The transition from round to round is arbitrary. You get shot at the same number of times across the NPCs all getting one turn no matter where your turn lies in relation to them.  You go, they go, you go, they go.  Or they go, you go, they go,  you go.  There is no capacity in the rules for they go, you go, you go, they go.  Deliberately so.  It's not change blindness.

Until they're dead/downed. Which is quite soon in Shadowrun, with one-shotting being a pretty common occurrence when fighting lower-statted enemies.

Say two fast-acting PCs are fighting three slow NPCs. PC1 wants to wait for PC2 to do something before attacking (see my previous post for some narrative reasons this might make sense.)

Under 5e, it might go

PC1 defers
PC2 does stuff, kills NPC1
PC1 acts now, kills NPC2
NPC3 attacks someone
<< new turn starts >>
PC1 kills NPC3

You're saying under 6e RAW it has to be

PC1 doesn't take combat actions but cannot defer
PC2 does stuff, kills NPC1
NPC2 attacks PC1
NPC3 attacks PC2
<< new turn starts >>
PC1 acts, kills NPC2
PC2 acts, kills NPC3

The NPCs got an extra attack in this scenario. The fact that, if the turn order is extended to infinity, it all would even out doesn't matter - because combat isn't infinitely long.

edit - added <<new turn markers>> to my example

[skalchemist]

The transition from round to round is arbitrary. You get shot at the same number of times across the NPCs all getting one turn no matter where your turn lies in relation to them.  You go, they go, you go, they go.  Or they go, you go, they go,  you go.  There is no they go, you go, you go, they go.  Deliberately.  It's not change blindness.

This isn't technically true, SSDR, unless I am completely misreading the initiative Edge Boost.

My initiative score is 21, yours is 23.  On the first round, you go first, then I take my turn.  Then, at the start of the next round, I spend an Edge to boost my initiative to 24, and go again.   You go, I go, I go, you go.  After that point it returns to the alternation, but you could do the same thing to me at a later point. 

Technically, if you want to achieve a situation where you go after a friend who rolled less than you on initiative, you could do that under the current rules, but you don't take the action your friend does; they boost their initiative to beat yours.  Of course, that could cost a LOT of Edge, with lots of people turning in their own Edge two for one to give it to the friend.  But under the current system there is no way to choose to go after an enemy that I can see.

Also, in a lot of cases an equivalent tactical situation can be achieved when you consider that going later in the current round might be practically equivalent to going sooner in the NEXT round.  But that won't always be so, and again it might cost a lot of Edge.

EDIT:

Say two fast-acting PCs are fighting three slow NPCs. PC1 wants to wait for PC2 to do something before attacking (see my previous post for some narrative reasons this might make sense.)

Sorry, I'm on a roll here, but if PC1 can totally go after PC2 if he wants to, PC2 just needs to boost their initiative. That is, PC1 and PC2 can coordinate to make that happen if they have enough Edge and the difference in their initiative scores is not too large.

[penllawen]

Sorry, I'm on a roll here, but if PC1 can totally go after PC2 if he wants to, PC2 just needs to boost their initiative. That is, PC1 and PC2 can coordinate to make that happen if they have enough Edge and the difference in their initiative scores is not too large.

Sure, that's fair (although it might be a pretty big "if"!)

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

You're saying under 6e RAW it has to be

PC1 doesn't take combat actions but cannot defer
PC2 does stuff, kills NPC1
NPC2 attacks PC1
NPC3 attacks PC2
<< new turn starts >>
PC1 acts, kills NPC2
PC2 acts, kills NPC3

The NPCs got an extra attack in this scenario. The fact that, if the turn order is extended to infinity, it all would even out doesn't matter - because combat isn't infinitely long.

I'm saying I think it's reasonable that the GM allow PC1 to drop behind PC2 in initiative order, if desirable.  The catch is that new turn order persists, rather than reverting, in round 2.  No, it's not a rule per RAW. If that's the point you want to make, you made it.  I'm saying it's simple enough it didn't need half a page to cover. As I said before, maybe Firing Line will cover such a thing.

The transition from round to round is arbitrary. You get shot at the same number of times across the NPCs all getting one turn no matter where your turn lies in relation to them.  You go, they go, you go, they go.  Or they go, you go, they go,  you go.  There is no they go, you go, you go, they go.  Deliberately.  It's not change blindness.

This isn't technically true, SSDR, unless I am completely misreading the initiative Edge Boost.

My initiative score is 21, yours is 23.  On the first round, you go first, then I take my turn.  Then, at the start of the next round, I spend an Edge to boost my initiative to 24, and go again.   You go, I go, I go, you go.  After that point it returns to the alternation, but you could do the same thing to me at a later point. 

Technically, if you want to achieve a situation where you go after a friend who rolled less than you on initiative, you could do that under the current rules, but you don't take the action your friend does; they boost their initiative to beat yours.  Of course, that could cost a LOT of Edge, with lots of people turning in their own Edge two for one to give it to the friend.  But under the current system there is no way to choose to go after an enemy that I can see.

Also, in a lot of cases an equivalent tactical situation can be achieved when you consider that going later in the current round might be practically equivalent to going sooner in the NEXT round.  But that won't always be so, and again it might cost a lot of Edge.

EDIT:

Say two fast-acting PCs are fighting three slow NPCs. PC1 wants to wait for PC2 to do something before attacking (see my previous post for some narrative reasons this might make sense.)

Sorry, I'm on a roll here, but if PC1 can totally go after PC2 if he wants to, PC2 just needs to boost their initiative. That is, PC1 and PC2 can coordinate to make that happen if they have enough Edge and the difference in their initiative scores is not too large.

Ok, fair.  Yes there's an exception to what I said in that you can spend edge and increase your initiative score, thereby potentially getting two "you gos" in between another party's turns.  You had to be behind first though, in order for that to happen, which isn't exactly what penllawen was talking about.

without spending resources? no, no doubling up on turns.

[Xenon]

...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