Man, I really donīt want to defend SR6 right now, because I just couldnīt help it, bought the QSR and got really turnt off by the shere amount of editing blunders. And mostly, the 2-Edge-per-round limit, which looks more and more like an (even somewhat understandable) editing/wording error that will likely be never ever corrected and haunt that edition from day one...
But these 3 common talking points need a little reality check on their own. I see some faults in SR6 as well (the most important one is mentioned right at the start), but these are not part of it, or at least not in they way they are commonly articulated. And since they a) are somewhat contestable and b) rooted in some fundamental disagreements about realism VS gameplay, they lead to these extremely lenghty, repetitive and salty debates that tend to overshadow more pressing (and thus, less contested) concerns. F.i. the 2-Edge-per-round blunder isnīt even a question of realism VS gaming: Itīs pretty bad from both points of view.
1. Armor and defense values
In your first example, the Armor simply isnīt high enough to offer that person an real advantage against a firearm at a certain range. At a less advantageous range or against a lower-caliber weapon or when using cover, its still worth wearing. And in the other way around, thereīs only so much that (worn) Arm can really help. Itīs more all-or-nothing than in previous editions, but is that really breaking suspension of disbelief? Especially when compared to the overblown importance of armor in SR5?
Itīs also worth noting that itīs apparantly mostly worn armor that gets this treatment. Meanwhile, many supernatural and futuristic perks (spells, augmentations) still offer soak dice, greatly improving their value in comparison to "mundane" means of protection. This mechanically strengthens the core themes of Shadowrun.
2. Pixies, Trolls and Combat Axes
AFAIK, there are no Pixies in the Core rules, so thereīs no way telling if a Pixie can even lift an Axe or any bigger Firearm in 6E. Pixies were always contested between Pink Mohawks, Rule Lawyers and Simulationists. Because apparently, you have to exlicitly spell out that a creature thatīs only half a meter in size canīt effectively use heavy weaponry and canīt just rely on the playerīs common sense here. Well, maybe CGL will do it this time once the corresponding supplements come out. Until then, can we please all take a step back and replace the pixie in this overused talking point with a strength 1 BTL junkie?
Now Iīm not too much a fan of the decoupling of strength and melee weapons as well, at least to the extent Iīve heard to far. However, thatīs coming less from a realism PoV and more from a gameplay/balancing PoV. Itīs weird that Strength is apparently becoming such a dumbstat in 6E, with even things like sprinting becoming an Agility test. However, realism-wise, many melee Weapons and especially pointed weapons like knifes just really donīt rely on the strength. At best, you can use strength to overpower you opponent and force your weapon in their soft bits during a clinch (you know, that old knifefight cliche in movies...). From from what Iīve heard, Strength is still used to determine attack values of attacks with a weapon, so that little "Edge" you get from being a strong dude with a knife is still accounted for.
The suspension of disbelief is higher with bigger weapons like Combat Axes, agreed. A Pixie strength 1 BTL junkie that manages to lift one over his/her head mighty rely on gravity doing the rest and smash it down. But itīs obviously a lot less gracefull and easier to dodge, and strength being part of the AR is probably not enough to properly reflect that. However, we donīt know if there will be stuff like minimal strength to use certain weapons in 6E. And maybe, these kind of "heavy" melee weapons wonīt even be used with Agility.
Now for the part that grinds my gears the most about fixed damage values: Apparently, Unarmed Combat damage is Strength/2. That means that a Strength 10 Troll deals more Damage with his fists alone than with a club, a knife or a combat axe. That is obviously a really big problem both from a realism and a gameplay/balancing POV. Unless you bring in Adept Powers, Bone Lacing etc., being armed should always offer an advantage over being unarmed in melee.
3. Two girls, one smoke grenade
Iīm sorry, but isnīt this an argument for the exact opposite? In your example, the rigger with the default dice pool of 6 would be disproportionaly afffected by a flat dice pool modifier for the smoke. In fact, she wouldnīt even be able to shoot (or at least, hit) at all, since there are no dice left. Howīs that realistic?
But more importantly (and I think thatīs a key thing to clarify about the edge tossing): Who says that itīs a wash in this case just because both are standing in the smoke? When you defend against a Firearm, you try to keep your head down and try to break LOS. (You donīt really "dodge" bullets in SR, at least not without supernatural perks or aumentations. And even with them, your defense test against ranged attacks is less of a "dodge the bullet" test and more like a "spatial awareness and quick tactical decisions" test). Being in heavy smoke can be a bit of a hindrance when doing so, but it offers also some benefits (breaking LOS) and, most importantly, a shooter is obviously more disadvantaged by the smoke than the shootee defender. So, the defender getīs the edge in this case. case closed.
Things may look different when both are going into melee, if the attacker has thermographic vision etc. Yes, it requires some eyeballing on the GMs part to come to this conclusion. But thatīs hardly so bad compared to sifting through the books for modifiers that, when stacked up, keeps everyone from doing stuff altogether.
