[Marcus]

So going to a maximum of two attacks from a system that generally started with at least 2 is a huge loss

5e only allowed 1 attack per Initiative Pass period, not at least two. Yes, maybe it's less attacks per Combat Turn, but with only 1 Initiative Score the difference only really matters when it comes to Toxins and Drugs. But hey, it's allowed to be overly dramatic.

Call it turns or rounds as you prefer, it doesn't change the point, Players action economy will be a fraction of what it was in all past editions.

[Michael Chandra]

Players action economy will be a fraction of what it was in all past editions.

I fail to see how.

Anyway. Let's look at 3 players.
A: X+1d6: Rolls 12
B: Y+3d6: Rolls 26
C: Z+4d6: Rolls 31

SR5:
IP1: C acts. B acts. A acts.
IP2: C acts. B acts. A acts. (Assuming A didn't take a -2 penalty by now.)
IP3: C acts. B acts.
IP4: C acts.
Reroll. C got 4 attacks, B 3, A 2. That's assuming the fight lasts this long.

SR6:
CT1: C has 1M, 5m, can trade to have 2M, 1m and attack 2x. B can trade all Minors, or keep them for stuff. A cannot trade.
CT2: C has 1M, 5m, can trade to have 2M, 1m and attack 2x. B can trade all Minors, or keep them for stuff. A cannot trade.
<repeat ad infinitum>
C got 4 attacks, B 2~4 (depending on if B needs a Minor for something), A 2. Let's assume B took Cover once, so scores 1 attack in CT1, then 2 in CT2. Then in the end both still have the same amount of attacks as in SR5.

[Marcus]

It's called Game Theory Michael. When players have to make more rolls, ever roll increase their chance of over all failure.

Combats in past editions ended in one turn for a reason. When players have less attacks, their will be more turns. Ergo the player will be more likely to lose. Player C in past would able to clean up in pass 3 and 4. Preventing the need for CT2. The occurrence of CT2 is the very heart of the issue.  So as soon as you add CT2 you made my point for me.

Further now player will never get more then two attacks. So if they start with 2 there will be no growth. Which many people have said they like.

[Redwulfe]

I think that what you do in a turn is the meat of things when as Michael is pointing out, in my opinion, what should be looked at is what you do in a combat.

SR6 seems to give you more actions and things to do in a combat.

We are probably getting hung up on what we do in a turn and not looking at the full picture.

[Hobbes]

5th edition a Street Sami with a typical 3 actions would down 3 Mooks up to rating 3 in a turn and take nothing to a few stun in return.  6th edition doesn't seem that is going to be the way it goes.  Too much incoming fire for too long, eventually your Defense test will fail you.  And dropping 3 targets in 3 seconds doesn't seem likely unless the Multi-Target rules are much more effective.

It's not terrible, all a GM needs to do is remove some bad guy tokens.  But the trope of a Street Sami taking on a dozen gangers seems unlikely in 6th edition from what we've seen at this point.

Naratively it certainly seems like a reduction in relative combat ability both in time spent to eliminate opponents and number of opponents you can handle.  Again, not really a big deal as all a GM needs to do is pull a couple tokens off the board.

[Marcus]

And as you fail to see how Michael i'll do the math explicitly for you.
SR5- We see 9 Actions we don't know how many frees the took. But could have taken several

SR6- maybe 5? so about 1/2. 5/9th literally, and of course Zero free actions. So yes a fraction,

I could also go through and 6 npc actions into that chat and do that math, but anyone who's paying attention understands the point, without me drawing the picture..

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Call it turns or rounds as you prefer, it doesn't change the point, Players action economy will be a fraction of what it was in all past editions.

Well you can like it or not. Either way, it was explained in at least one of the podcasts I saw (iirc the one with Jason Hardy) that it was a deliberate design goal to make combat more interactive.  Sammy going, sammy going, sammy going, sammy going.... that was decided to be an undesirable thing. The game design is actively intending to promote combats lasting more than 1 round.

Yes it's true that high initiative-jackers will have fewer actions than in 5e.  However, that's NOT the same thing as initiative-jackers not having any more actions in combat than everyone else.

[Michael Chandra]

To be fair, 9/10 is a fraction.

[Hobbes]

With 4 Minors = an extra attack you've got a really clear threshold to hit for combat characters.  If what has been revealed so far is accurate, Unarmed Combat with high Strength characters is going to be the new Meta.  You'll probably want to hit 2 Majors and one Minor.  Hit, move, Hit.  At a minimum two Majors so once you do get stuck in you can take two swings a turn.

I kinda doubt 3 minors will be 75% as good as a single attack, so the second Major action will be really important.  You'll see all kinds of shenanigans trying to hit that benchmark.  Much like 5th edition Melee weapon builds, or Adept builds with assorted powers to activate.  Complex action to attack, need simple actions to ready weapons or powers.  Action economy starts eating into your damage output fast.

*shrug*  It's all the same to me, something is going to be "The Best".  But its certainly a significant change from 5e to 6e for combat characters so far.

[Michael Chandra]

I think any build I make will depend on combat drugs and a friendly mage to Antidote me. Assuming Blitz is gone. Because I tend to make poor Street Sams, which was survivable in 5e but will be a significant downside in 6e so it's combat drugs until a few hundred grand for Synaptic 3. Hey, maybe a mage can boost my initiative instead.

[Hobbes]

I think any build I make will depend on combat drugs and a friendly mage to Antidote me. Assuming Blitz is gone. Because I tend to make poor Street Sams, which was survivable in 5e but will be a significant downside in 6e so it's combat drugs until a few hundred grand for Synaptic 3. Hey, maybe a mage can boost my initiative instead.

Depends on what stacks and what options are in the CRB.  If Initiative Augmentations are similar to 5e in Essence/Nuyen costs and drugs are still an exploitable mess, then Juicers all around.  Which I honestly don't mind.  I like the Combat Drug character for my Cyberpunk games.

[Lormyr]

The absolute best stacking decision they could have made would have been to do away with spells stacking with adept powers, mage combat sense with adept combat sense for example. with all of the other things they have done away with or altered that were not necessary in my opinion I will be quite disappointed if that one remained.

[Marcus]

To be fair, 9/10 is a fraction.

Well I’m glad you figured out what a fraction is. Maybe next you can figure out how to fix this disaster.

SSDR it’s true whether or not I strick with SR is fairly irrelevant. But what does matter SSDR is if you try to white wash something you lose
Credibility, I’d say the same to Michael but I think that ship already sailed. What make 5e d&d so successful is the floor of effective build is very low. In other words it’s hard to make bad choices. Priority has always made it easy for players to make bad choices. Combine this with reduce action economy and your on the road to serious problems. What we say goes out to everyone, you like 6e fine. But don’t hide the flaws and don’t try to spin it.

[All4BigGuns]

I read the announcement email and came here to try and find out more. Once I saw this thread and what's been done to initiative and action economy, this pretty much suggests that this new 6E to be the final nail in the coffin of a once great game.

[mcv]

5th edition a Street Sami with a typical 3 actions would down 3 Mooks up to rating 3 in a turn and take nothing to a few stun in return.  6th edition doesn't seem that is going to be the way it goes.  Too much incoming fire for too long, eventually your Defense test will fail you.

I don't see how this is the case. In SR5, after the street sam's first attack, all the mooks get to attack. In SR6, the street sam gets all his attacks first, and only then is it the mooks' turn. If the sam reliably kills a mook per attack, in SR5 he'd get attacked by 2 mooks, versus only 1 in SR6.

That's what I mean with the SR2 problem: fast street sams get all their attacks before anyone else gets a turn. It's less extreme than in SR2 because the street sam gets a maximum of 2 attacks rather than 3 or maybe 4.