NEWS

Combat is SR6?

  • 311 Replies
  • 54326 Views

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Coordinator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4572
« Reply #285 on: <08-29-19/1109:18> »
If it's "intentionally ambiguous", why "should" I have used the grunt rules?

Well, a takeaway I took from your post was one of the major things you disliked was how NN hit his edge cap.

I was suggesting that had you used group attacks instead, maybe you would have felt better about the flow of combat under these new rules.

Should I combine their attacks now? If so, how? One is melee, one is ranged. One is stun, one physical. One is taking a modifier for shooting into melee, the other one isn't. Maybe I can find a way to do this mechanically, but in narrative terms, why does it make any sense to combine these different things?

Pg 114 answers all these questions.

TL;DR: It doesn't matter if the swarm of attacks are not identical. Or even if they're not similar.  Just pick one of them to be the "lead", and everything else just adds to that lead attack's DV and AR.
« Last Edit: <08-29-19/1116:19> by Stainless Steel Devil Rat »
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

Serbitar

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 49
« Reply #286 on: <08-29-19/1116:47> »
As penllawen's simple example demonstrates, subjecting a PC to iterative attacks rather than a gestalt attack increases the PC's peril.  Facing 2x 3P is worse than 1x 4P DV because of the depressed soak values.  Of course the NPCs have more opportunity to gain edge over 2 attacks rather than 1 attack, while the PC is simultaneously losing out on edge due to the cap.  So on and so on.

Good demonstration why group attacks in sr6 are bad, eg get different results than single attacks. Group attacks are a shortcut you use when making single attacks is too tedious, like 10 rats attacking you. Not 2 goons.
« Last Edit: <08-29-19/1119:17> by Serbitar »

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 804
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #287 on: <08-29-19/1117:54> »
I was suggesting that had you used group attacks instead, maybe you would have felt better about the flow of combat under these new rules.
As I discussed at some length above, I don't feel group attacks solves this problem.

Perhaps you don't like the counter-examples I posted there, so here's another: it's dark, only NN has enhanced vision, now he earns his full 2 Edge on his first attack and we're back to "he doesn't earn any Edge for his armour when he gets attacked."

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 804
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #288 on: <08-29-19/1119:14> »
Should I combine their attacks now? If so, how? One is melee, one is ranged. One is stun, one physical. One is taking a modifier for shooting into melee, the other one isn't. Maybe I can find a way to do this mechanically, but in narrative terms, why does it make any sense to combine these different things?

Pg 114 answers all these questions.

TL;DR: It doesn't matter if the swarm of attacks are not identical. Or even if they're not similar.  Just pick one of them to be the "lead", and everything else just adds to that lead attack's DV and AR.
Does page 114 answer the bolded question "in narrative terms, why does it make any sense to combine these different things?"

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9920
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #289 on: <08-29-19/1120:36> »
The group rules are something I really like.  The idea of not having an individual name means you don't get an individual attack is a great rule of thumb.
The best part is the drone that goes 'often used in packs, each counts as 1.5 for grunt group size'. Get a dozen, split in 2 groups, each counts as 9 at +4 dice and +8 AR. Rigger eat your heart out.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

Serbitar

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 49
« Reply #290 on: <08-29-19/1121:17> »
Should I combine their attacks now? If so, how? One is melee, one is ranged. One is stun, one physical. One is taking a modifier for shooting into melee, the other one isn't. Maybe I can find a way to do this mechanically, but in narrative terms, why does it make any sense to combine these different things?

Pg 114 answers all these questions.

TL;DR: It doesn't matter if the swarm of attacks are not identical. Or even if they're not similar.  Just pick one of them to be the "lead", and everything else just adds to that lead attack's DV and AR.
Does page 114 answer the bolded question "in narrative terms, why does it make any sense to combine these different things?"

Well, Sr6 is a very gamist system apparently... Not much simulationism, aka common sense.

Serbitar

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 49
« Reply #291 on: <08-29-19/1122:51> »
The group rules are something I really like.  The idea of not having an individual name means you don't get an individual attack is a great rule of thumb.
The best part is the drone that goes 'often used in packs, each counts as 1.5 for grunt group size'. Get a dozen, split in 2 groups, each counts as 9 at +4 dice and +8 AR. Rigger eat your heart out.

Get 20 of these and kill a tank?

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Coordinator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 4572
« Reply #292 on: <08-29-19/1127:40> »
Well, Sr6 is a very gamist system apparently... Not much simulationism, aka common sense.

It's absolutely not a simulationist system, I think we're all agreed.

It does loony things like having characters wait around stationary while it's everyone else's time to resolve actions... only moving in between their own actions to dodge attacks, even if they're bullets!

Oh and how crazy are those movement rules! If someone's got a movement allowance of 15 meters, and I'm 15 meters away, just because they beat me on initiative I can't move a couple meters out of arm's reach in the time it took them to cover 15...

And armor? Doesn't do anything you say? Of course it does! A simple armored vest somehow gives its armor benefit (soak in 5e, DR in 6we) no matter if you're being shot in the face, in the crotch, anywhere at all! Doesn't matter that a vest only covers your torso!

So anyway, not everyone's going to like 6we.  If you don't like it, great.  Play your favorite edition instead. Or quit SR forever.  Whatever. Just please don't imply that 5e was some simulationist ideal.
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

Lormyr

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 820
« Reply #293 on: <08-29-19/1153:30> »
I think the grunt group "rules suggestion" is solid in the hands of any fair GM with a modicum of sense. I absolutely despise the fact that a rulebook has suggestions in place of hard rules, though.

When grunt groups because bad is when one of two things happens. 1, the individual NPC's in question literally cannot possibly be a threat solo. 2, when a GM inevitably ignores the "suggestion" of not making the grunt groups larger than 5 members.

I can seriously see it now:

"The sea of invalid, wheelchair bound lepers slowly and painstakingly roll upon out of the dark night! Surrounded on all sides, you witness the grimaces of pain upon their faces turn into dark sneers, and dark urges. They advance upon you, one terrifying mob, as grotesque phlegm, raspy voices, and the bludgeons of countless wheels overcome you! You should have never taken that old man's meds. . .".

Here's my suggestion - write hard rules in your core "rulebook", not suggestions. Let individual groups sort out their house rules and suggestions.
"TL:DR 6e's reduction of meaningful choices is akin to forcing everyone to wear training wheels. Now it's just becomes a bunch of toddlers riding around on tricycles they can't fall off of." - Adzling

Finstersang

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 751
« Reply #294 on: <08-29-19/1154:46> »
One of my players bought SR6. Last night we tried a little mini-session, starting with Nigel Nutbiter the dwarven samurai against two PR3 Lone Star beat cops.

First combat turn:

1. NN puts a single round into Goon1 with his FN-HAL. Gets an Edge because the gun overwhelms Goon1's armour vest. Goon1 takes 4P damage.
2. Goon2 shoots NN with his light pistol. NN gets an Edge because his armour is much better than Goon2's shitty pistol. Goon2 still tags him, though, for 3P damage.
3. Goon1 shoots at NN. NN gets no Edge. He already has his two for this Combat Round. His armour just doesn't do anything.

Second combat turn:

4. NN uses 4 Edge to get Anticipation, and mows both goons down.

If it had been dark, then NN's vision mods would have given him a second point of Edge at step (1), and his armour would have had no bearing on the subsequent combat.

Intellectually I knew all this already, but watching it play out was still impactful. I am deeply unimpressed by the two-per-round Edge clipping effect and how unnatural and stilted it feels at the table.

One of the points of Edge that Nigel used in step 4 to mow the goons down he earned in defence at step 2. NN's armour made a difference when one goon shot at him, but not when the second goon did. I have no feel at all for how these mechanics are reflected in the narrative fiction that's happening inside the game world; there's a disconnect between the dice and the story that I don't know how to bridge smoothly.

That first one is explainable by Nigel getting more cocky because of his better armor - to a point where the "usual" benefit of Armor - being protected - turns into an offensive benefit. I´d actually argue that this can even turn out to be a bit more "simulationist" because the rules are able to reflect these kind-of-existing-but-rarely-simulated transitions of offensive and defensive advantages.

The clipping effect ... well, that´s an entirely different story, both from a gamist and a simulationist POV. I´m a big advocate for reforming this rule so that there´s only a limit on how many Edge Points you can keep after the Action that helped them earn you.

Or just ditch it altogether. The consequences are hardly less realistic as with the current RAW, but at least it´s more fun  ;)
« Last Edit: <08-29-19/1203:47> by Finstersang »

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2703
« Reply #295 on: <08-29-19/1214:28> »
I don’t see how you get cocky after taking 3 of 10 boxes of damage.

Serbitar

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 49
« Reply #296 on: <08-29-19/1246:43> »
So anyway, not everyone's going to like 6we.  If you don't like it, great.  Play your favorite edition instead. Or quit SR forever.  Whatever. Just please don't imply that 5e was some simulationist ideal.

SR5 was not ideal, where did I say that? I am just pointing out problems in SR6.

Ghost Rigger

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 539
« Reply #297 on: <08-29-19/1252:36> »
And armor? Doesn't do anything you say? Of course it does! A simple armored vest somehow gives its armor benefit (soak in 5e, DR in 6we) no matter if you're being shot in the face, in the crotch, anywhere at all! Doesn't matter that a vest only covers your torso!
Unless you're going up against damage so high no armor available to you could've made a difference. Or if your shooter uses an imaging scope, then you can't get edge from your armor period.Or on the more positive side, maybe your Body is so high you would've gotten the edge anyways. Or maybe you've already gotten 2 edge earlier that round so you can't gain any edge from anything. In that latter case you might "but surely you denied the shooter some edge by wearing armor". Maybe. Maybe your high Body alone was enough to deny him that edge, or he's already gotten 2 edge earlier in the round and can't get edge from anything. Look at that, 5 scenarios where armor does literally nothing.

Meanwhile in 5e there are 3 scenarios in which armor does literally nothing and they're all "you were fucked to begin with":
  • the DV is so high that the additional soak dice from the armor, even before AP, cannot possibly prevent you from getting instagibbed (example: while setting up a 150P explosion in the basement of a building to destroy it, you cross the wrong wires and blow yourself up)
  • the DV is so high that the additional soak dice from the armor, after AP, cannot possibly prevent you from getting instagibbed (example: APDS Bulls-eye Burst from a Barret Model 122 on a heavily armored streetsam)
  • the AP is so high that your armor provides no additional soak dice (example: APDS Bulls-eye Burst from a Barret Model 122 on anyone else)
How is it that no matter how long these conversations go on, we always come back to "armor does nothing in 6e"?
After all you don't send an electrician to fix your leaking toilet.

A Guide to Gridguide

Finstersang

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 751
« Reply #298 on: <08-29-19/1255:07> »
I don’t see how you get cocky after taking 3 of 10 boxes of damage.

You could flip cause and effect, though: "Ok, thanks to my armor I can risk lining up that shot for a little bit longer and... OUCH FUCK MY SHOULDER ok right back at ya basterds..."

TBH, it´s really not a perfect analogy. There is certain amount of "esotericism" around the egde system, especially with the Armor interaction. I guess that the limit of 2 Edge per round is supposed to confine this problem. It really doesn´t tho. It just creates other narrative problems due to the clipping.   

Finstersang

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 751
« Reply #299 on: <08-29-19/1311:13> »
And armor? Doesn't do anything you say? Of course it does! A simple armored vest somehow gives its armor benefit (soak in 5e, DR in 6we) no matter if you're being shot in the face, in the crotch, anywhere at all! Doesn't matter that a vest only covers your torso!
Unless you're going up against damage so high no armor available to you could've made a difference. Or if your shooter uses an imaging scope, then you can't get edge from your armor period.Or on the more positive side, maybe your Body is so high you would've gotten the edge anyways. Or maybe you've already gotten 2 edge earlier that round so you can't gain any edge from anything. In that latter case you might "but surely you denied the shooter some edge by wearing armor". Maybe. Maybe your high Body alone was enough to deny him that edge, or he's already gotten 2 edge earlier in the round and can't get edge from anything. Look at that, 5 scenarios where armor does literally nothing.

Meanwhile in 5e there are 3 scenarios in which armor does literally nothing and they're all "you were fucked to begin with":
  • the DV is so high that the additional soak dice from the armor, even before AP, cannot possibly prevent you from getting instagibbed (example: while setting up a 150P explosion in the basement of a building to destroy it, you cross the wrong wires and blow yourself up)
  • the DV is so high that the additional soak dice from the armor, after AP, cannot possibly prevent you from getting instagibbed (example: APDS Bulls-eye Burst from a Barret Model 122 on a heavily armored streetsam)
  • the AP is so high that your armor provides no additional soak dice (example: APDS Bulls-eye Burst from a Barret Model 122 on anyone else)
How is it that no matter how long these conversations go on, we always come back to "armor does nothing in 6e"?

The effect of the imaging scope is really dumb,  mostly because it rarely helps snipers unless the target has an extremely Defense rating or, most hilariously, is really close to you. I suspect that this effect was conceived under the impression that all types of ranged weapons will have have lower AR on higher ranges. Later, someone decided that it´s a better idea (and TBH, it is) if the AR varies over different ranges to simulate the different strengths and optimal ranges of the weapon types. Now, Sniper Rifles peak at the higher ranges and have a low AR only in Close Combat. The result is a disconnect of the actual purpose of a scope (you know... long ranges?) from the mechanics.

Apart from that blunder, I really think that AR/DR could use more nuances except the current 3 possible outcomes (Which are often reduced to 2 or even 1 because of edge-denial effects or that goddamn clipping...). Why not use it to determine if the attacker hits on a tie? Or add some additional effects for really high differences?   
« Last Edit: <08-29-19/1317:05> by Finstersang »